Requirements for Applying for Citizenship in the United States
Download article as a PDF – Go to the website to download the article.
Applying for U.S. citizenship is a long, extensive process, but for many it is worth the time and effort the process demands. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) handles citizenship applications, and here are the basic requirements you need to meet when applying for citizenship in the U.S.:
• You already have a green card
• You are at least 18 years old.
• You have lived in the U.S. lawfully as a permanent resident for at least five years unless you are a spouse of a U.S. citizen, refugee, or received your green card through political asylum.
• During those five years, you have been physically present in the U.S. for at least half of the time.
• You have not spent more than one year at a time outside the U.S.
• You have not established a primary home in another country.
• You have lived in the state or district where you are filing your application for at least three months.
• You have “good moral character”.
• You can read, write and speak English.
• You can pass a test about U.S. history and government.
• You will swear that you believe in the principles of the U.S. Constitution and will be loyal to the U.S.
The Application and Your Immigration History
If you meet all the above criteria, the next step is to actually apply. Visit the USCIS website (www.uscis.gov), complete the citizenship application and include a copy of your current green card, any required photos and any application fee(s). The USCIS is a slow agency and applying for citizenship will likely leave you waiting for months before they will schedule an appointment to get you fingerprinted and schedule an interview.
Be aware that they will question your entire immigration history. Every trip out of the U.S. will be closely examined, so be prepared to answer any potential questions and provide any documentation you can to substantiate why you left the country. Do not lie for any reason; if the USCIS detects any fraud, they will not only deny your citizenship request but strip you of your green card and deport you.
The interview is really a test, and a USCIS officer will test your proficiency in English (unless you fit within an exempted category and are over 50) as well as your knowledge of U.S. history and government. Disabled applicants can request reasonable accommodations. The test isn’t a trap and the officers aren’t out to fail you, but study up – if you’ve waited this long to be a citizen, you don’t want the test to be the reason you miss your opportunity.
The Swearing-In Ceremony
If you make it through the interview, you’ll receive an appointment to a swearing-in ceremony. It’s at this ceremony that you finally, formally, become a citizen. You will take an oath and receive a certificate of naturalization to prove your citizenship. Now that you are formally a citizen, you can also petition to have close family members legally enter the U.S.
- See more at: http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/requirements-for-applying-for-citizenship-in-the-united-states.html?DCMP=GOO-IMMI_Citizenship-Requirements&HBX_PK=requirements+for+us+citizenship#sthash.Fufe9Ma7.dpuf
Subject: Help Save Maryland – With Cantor Downed Lets Get Serious About Illegal Infiltrators
Protest to FreeAmerican Marine SGT. Andrew Tahmooressi
We had an excellent turnout for the protest at the Mexican Embassy last week. More than 25 volunteers from the Conservative Victory PAC, Help Save Maryland and others groups made plenty of noise at the Mexico Embassy in DC. The DC Police and Secret Service came out in force to make sure we were not going to storm the entrance to the Embassy! Good Press and TV coverage as well.
A representative from the Embassy came out to give us a bulls–t handout explaining why the Mexican Judiciary was holding Tahmooressi and why there was “nothing they could do” at the Embassy. This Embassy press person was getting frustrated when we asked how it was possible Mexican Border Guards were somehow awake when Tahmooressi came to the border but are always having Siesta Time when 60,000 Central American young adults and children, who walked all the way from southern Mexico to the U.S. border, get through with no problem. And that doesn’t include the millions of Mexicans who walk across the border as well.
As we move closer to real U.S. Border Security and Internal Enforcement of our immigration laws, we must place Mexico in the foe rather than friend column of the United States. Oh I forget to mention the Embassy representative started whining about Texas jailing and executing Mexicans. We had to remind him that’s what happens to criminals, not a Marine that make a wrong turn at the border.
Mexico, like the current Administration, is the problem, not the solution.
A Splash of Immigration Reality for the GOP
And an immigration policy that Republican voters would embrace
13 June 2014
In the wake of David Brat’s defeat of Virginia Congressman and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, chiefly because of the Republican primary candidates’ different views on immigration, it’s important for Republicans and conservatives to remember that opposing amnesty for illegal aliens, or resisting the legal immigration of low-skilled and ill-educated distant relatives of citizens, is not the same thing as being anti-immigration or anti-immigrant. It’s worth reemphasizing an argument City Journal writers Victor Davis Hanson, Heather Mac Donald, and Steven Malanga made eloquently in their book, The Immigration Solution, some years ago: Since the United States can’t take in every person in the world who would like to live here, it should admit immigrants based on whether they can enhance the wealth and well-being of the nation. A reasonable pro-immigration position would enthusiastically celebrate the immense contribution that immigrants have made to this country since its settlement by immigrants four centuries ago, and it would go on to urge a liberal admission policy for those likely to make similar positive contributions. Not every immigrant has to be a Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, or Andrew Grove, but he and his children should make the country richer than they found it, if only by a sliver, and certainly should not become a burden to its already burdened taxpayers.
Three important changes that make a selective immigration policy essential have occurred in American society since the last great immigration wave just before World War I. First, the U.S. economy demands higher skills than it did when 24 million immigrants from eastern and southern Europe arrived on these shores around the turn of the twentieth century. In an America that was still largely agricultural, the new immigrants, whom nativists found so unsophisticated and uneducated, nevertheless possessed slightly higher skills, on average, than the native-born population. Entrepreneurial Jewish tailors and seamstresses created the American ready-to-wear clothing industry; Italian stonemasons crafted our amazing early-twentieth-century buildings; German shopkeepers, to whom the rhythms of urban life were already second nature, supercharged the retail trade. Of these immigrants, 27 percent were skilled, as compared with 17 percent of the native-born population.
For the 73 percent who were unskilled, an economy that needed laborers on unmechanized farms, diggers of subway and water tunnels, and legions of domestic servants provided ample employment opportunities. And immigrants had the choice of taking those jobs, starving, or going home. For—and this is the second great change in American society—no public welfare system existed then. Only ethnic self-help societies or churches or private charities could help the needy or unsuccessful—and only in limited numbers and for short periods of time. Still, not every immigrant could make it on the terms the America of that time set. When the Great Depression shrank the supply of jobs in the 1930s, 60 percent of those already here went home.
Third, American culture has changed beyond recognition in the century and more since the last great immigration. In those days, the larger society pressured immigrants to assimilate to a well-defined set of American norms and values, a demand immigrants strove to meet. Churches, settlement houses, and other private charities offered classes in English, American customs, and marketable skills. Now translated and collected into a book, the wonderful advice column headed “A Bintel Brief” in the Yiddish-languagedaily newspaper Der Forverts is moving testimony to the earnestness that generation of immigrants brought to the task of becoming Americans. In addition, the English-only urban public schools used to teach American history, with a heavy emphasis on American exceptionalism and a pride in the free republic the Founders gave us, along with what was called “citizenship,” which was merely mainstream civility, self-control, and good manners. The teachers were in the business of making Americans, and they had a clear idea of what they meant by that, even—or especially—if they were immigrants themselves, or the children of immigrants.
No more. Americans who still believe in American exceptionalism, by now possibly a minority of the total population, are hard to find in the teaching ranks, where multiculturalism, a belief in American original sin and oppressiveness, and relativism of every kind, hold sway—as they do in the immigrant-activist groups (now pushing for government- rather than self-help) and in every medium of popular culture, from movies to comic books to music. What is easiest for many recent Hispanic immigrants to assimilate into is gang culture, a simple, if self-destructive, way of belonging, which retarded the assimilation of some past Irish and Italian immigrant boys and, coupled with our welfare system (whose 1990s’ reforms our current national and local governments have been undoing), may retard the assimilation of some Hispanic immigrants for generations still to come. One of the saddest signs of our times is the number of children of hard-working Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, who end up in gangs or on welfare, with illegitimate children whom the girls raise alone.
The upshot of all this: the cultural revolution and the come-and-get-it welfare system that remade America in the 1960s have thrown sand in the gears of America’s upward-mobility machine. America used to give immigrants the opportunity to succeed and assimilate or to fail and either accept marginalization or go home. Plenty of immigrants still gladly accept that offer, and here in New York, our selective high schools are bursting with immigrant kids from poor families—many of them Indian and Chinese—who are well on their way to becoming doctors, inventors, entrepreneurs, and tycoons. A reasonable pro-immigration policy would say, bring us more of these kids and their families, as many as want to come. But it would also notice that some groups have children who disproportionally end up in jail or on welfare. Everyone can see how hard the immigrant parents work, providing cheap labor to agribusiness, construction, hotels, and restaurants, and cheap maids, nannies, and gardeners to the rich. But, learning from more than two decades’ experience of how their children are burdening our economy and society, a reasonable immigration policy would be slower to welcome such immigrants.
To believe in free trade requires belief in the free movement of goods and of capital—but not of labor. To economists, one unit of labor is much the same as another; one pair of hands is the same as another. But that’s not true. The hands are attached to a mind and a heart, which are in turn attached to a culture—and that makes pairs of hands, and the workers they belong to, not interchangeable. The cultural component makes all the difference, just as it did when George W. Bush believed that, once the United States removed the crushing weight of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny from the Iraqi people, the universal human love of liberty, stunted in them hitherto, would naturally blossom forth and allow them to become free democratic republicans, just like Americans. But how much cultural development went into the making of our democratic republic! You can’t take a culture of tribal and religious loyalties—the loyalties that make individuals feel that they and their lives are worthy—and make them instantly vanish, to be replaced with such elaborately developed ideals as the rule of law, individual liberty, self-reliance, and dispassionate justice. So a pair of hands attached to a passion for education, a commitment to family, and a dream of the future is very different from a pair of hands attached to a soul that lives from day to day, for that day’s wages—especially in an American culture that no longer inculcates those values so powerfully.
To a hugely greater extent than in the past, the immigrant population consists of illegal as well as legal entrants—upward of 12 million of them. Instead of securing the nation’s borders against such lawbreakers, as all realistic immigration-reform proposals begin by urging, President Obama has done the opposite, lawlessly opening the floodgates to young Hispanics, trying to change the facts on the ground, making the illegal population too winsome and innocent to deport, and apparently hoping that instead of letting the people choose new leaders, the leaders can choose a new people, who will vote for Democrats until the end of time. The likelihood, however, is that utterly justified calls to send these young people home will spark a wider resistance to amnesty for illegals (of which Professor Brat’s primary victory is a likely harbinger) and perhaps even expand into a demand for even further deportations.
Brat’s victory is a gift to Republicans, and they should not squander it. It allows them to put immigration at the center of the upcoming congressional election, to emphasize how illegally and cynically the president and his attorney general have handled the problem, and to frame an immigration policy that their constituents can embrace. Its elements would be these:
Secure the border with troops and fences. Instantly deport any new illegal entrants.
Follow the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizenship, which reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” That means that the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are not citizens, just as the U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats to this country are not citizens. Therefore, their mothers cannot collect child-only welfare benefits for them.
Immediately deport any immigrant convicted of a felony, including legal ones who have not yet attained citizenship.
Forbid states and localities from providing in-state tuition at state colleges, and driver’s licenses or other identity cards to illegal aliens, on pain of losing federal funds—especially because motor-voter registration invites vote fraud. The Tenth Amendment gives states the authority to determine their own voting rules and so prohibits federal authorities from interfering with their requirements of proof of citizenship from prospective voters.
Limit the family-reunification immigration policy to include only the spouses and minor children of legal immigrants. Beyond that, immigrants should be admitted only on the basis of skills and education.
The government should grant refugee status only after strict scrutiny.
Total numbers of immigrants should be limited for the next decade, while we see who will leave because of criminal convictions or ineligibility for welfare. Only then can we form a coolly rational policy concerning the remaining illegal immigrants, who will by then have a long enough history in this country to allow the Congress to see what they have accomplished, where they are headed, and whether they deserve some permanent legal status, and perhaps even a path to citizenship. That’s why I don’t believe that public schools should bar illegal-immigrant children.
After all, some of the parents of those bright Chinese kids in the New York exam-entrance high schools are illegal immigrants, who virtually sold themselves into slavery to get smuggled into this country, where their kids could have a chance to realize their talents. No one would ever want kids like that to leave—and Republicans need to assure legal Chinese voters, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama and the Democrats, of that sympathy. They are a natural GOP constituency.
Myron Magnet is editor-at-large of City Journal, a recipient of the National Humanities Medal, and the author of The Founders at Home: The Building of America, 1735–1817, recently published by W. W. Norton.
Sen. Jeff Sessions: Obama ‘Committed to Escalating’ Lawlessness at Border
There is now an unprecedented crisis unfolding at the border. The flow of illegal immigrant youth across the southern border is on track to reach 130,000 next year—a projected increase of more than 2,000% from 2011. The White House estimates the cost of “resettling” these illegal immigrants in the United States will reach $2.3 billion in a single year.
This crisis is a direct and predictable result of the President’s sustained and deliberate campaign to dismantle immigration enforcement. His administration has announced to the world that our nation’s immigration laws will not be enforced and that, in particular, they will not be applied to foreign youth.
The world has heard and heeded the President’s message. A wave of illegal immigration has overwhelmed authorities, producing a completely preventable humanitarian crisis—and further diminishing the integrity of our national borders. And there is but one way for the crisis to end: for the President of the United States to declare to the world: “Do not attempt to come here illegally. Our border is no longer open. Our laws will be enforced.”
A local TV station in Texas recently issued a telling report. They revealed that information is being disseminated in Central America urging people to make the life-threatening trek north in pursuit of amnesty: “A mother and child told Channel 5 News that the message being disseminated in their country is, ‘go to America with your child, you won’t be turned away.’”
The New York Times reported last week that an illegal immigrant youth said: “If you make it, they take you to a shelter and take care of you and let you have permission to stay… When you appeal your case, if you say you want to study, they support you.”
In response to this emergency, the Administration has taken steps to incentivize even more illegal immigration. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson—who swore an oath to uphold the law—just last week announced that 560,000 illegal immigrants will be given formal work authorization in the United States despite average unemployment rates of 20 percent for American teenagers without high school diplomas. Meanwhile, the President’s Labor Department has unilaterally authorized the admission of an additional 100,000 guest workers to compete against unemployed Americans. Among those who suffer the most as a result of these policies are African-American and Hispanic youth.
Secretary Johnson went on to emphasize that the United States will continue exempting foreign youth from America’s immigration laws. He explained: “almost all of us agree that a child who crossed our border illegally with a parent, or in search of a parent or a better life, was not making an adult choice to break our laws and should be treated differently than adult law-breakers.” In effect, Mr. Johnson is signaling to everyone in the world: if you come here by a certain age you will get amnesty and, ultimately, so will your family. It is a recipe for permanent lawlessness, open borders, and a continuing humanitarian catastrophe. (It must also be noted that many of those crossing illegally do not have parents, or even relatives, in the United States. And many of them are not minors at all.)
The nation’s chief law enforcement officer, Eric Holder, has even described amnesty as a “civil right.” Of course, if amnesty is a civil right then immigration laws can never be enforced and amnesty can never be denied, because such rights are immutable.
Cecilia Muñoz, who runs immigration policy for the White House—and who is a former executive for the open borders group La Raza—also likened amnesty to a civil right. And only days ago she absurdly argued that the surge in illegal immigration bears no relation to the President’s suspension of immigration laws or campaign for amnesty. As Breitbart News reported: “Muñoz pushed back against the idea that the influx could be due to discussions of [amnesty]… ‘Neither the bill which passed the Senate last year, nor the deferred action program for childhood arrivals would benefit these kids,’ she continued. ‘They both have cutoff dates. You had to have been in the country by a particular date in order to qualify for either of those things.’”
Perhaps an earlier report from the New York Times provides the best rebuttal to Ms. Munoz:
With detention facilities, asylum offices and immigration courts overwhelmed, enough migrants have been released temporarily in the United States that back home in Central America people have heard that those who make it to American soil have a good chance of staying. “Word has gotten out that we’re giving people permission and walking them out the door,” said Chris Cabrera, a Border Patrol agent who is vice president of the local of the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union. “So they’re coming across in droves.”
For all practical purposes, the Administration’s policy is that anyone in the world, of any age, is free to come and stay in the interior of the United States, to illegally work and receive taxpayer benefits, so long as they are not caught, tried, and convicted of a serious crime. And even then, thousands of criminal aliens are released each and every year.
Unfortunately, the President remains committed to escalating—rather than ending—the lawlessness. It therefore falls on the shoulders of Republicans alone to make the case for new leadership that will restore America’s borders. Republicans are the last line of defense for the American worker. They are the last bulwark for the rule of law.
That means prominent Republicans must cease issuing ill-conceived statements that it is somehow morally or legally improper for the United States to apply immigration laws to illegal immigrants who arrive by a certain age. As USCIS Council President Kenneth Palinkas has warned, these arguments will produce not merely a one-time amnesty but a “perpetual amnesty.” Palinkas explained that such promises lead to “extending birthright citizenship in the future to include the foreign citizens of other countries” (as opposed to the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S.). It cannot be the policy of the United States that any of the 2 billion people in the world who have yet turn to turn 18 have a right to illegally enter the United States and claim residency.
For the law enforcement to function, lawmakers and law officers must encourage—not discourage—the law’s application.
Imagine, for instance, that the Administration announced it would no longer enforce any tax fraud violations in amounts under $1 million, as a matter of “prosecutorial discretion.” Would we not see a massive spike in tax fraud in amounts less than a million dollars? It would be a unilateral repeal of an entire section of the criminal code by the Executive Branch. Now further imagine the Administration expanded the policy to say that tax fraud—in any amount—will be permitted so long as the proceeds are transferred to a minor relative. After all, this minor, the Administration argues, received the money “through no fault of their own” and so it would be morally improper to apply the law in such cases—it would be a violation of their “civil rights.” Does anyone doubt this would lead to a total collapse of tax enforcement nationwide?
Of course not. Yet this administration has effectively adopted the philosophy that immigration law, on its own, cannot be enforced in the interior of the United States and that, further, foreign nationals who arrive by a certain age—and their relatives—have a “right” to become citizens of the United States.
It is time for the GOP to look the American people in the eye and say: We will end the chaos. We will stop the lawlessness. And we will restore for the American people the immigration protections that have been callously stripped away by this Administration.
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee and former Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. He is also a former U.S. Attorney and Attorney General for the State of Alabama.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
Mexican Embassy Protest Video:
Join our Facebook Page at: https://www.facebook.com/helpsavemaryland
Follow us on Twitter at: https://www.twitter.com/helpsavemd
If a member of Facebook, please join our Facebook Group at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/282984955060/
Carmen Amedori, Canidate for House of Delegates, District 5, PRESS RELEASE Amedori files election law violation complaint with the Office of the State Prosecutor – Delegate Susan Krebs, Jeff Peters, Joe Carroll, All Involved?
AMEDORI for House of Delegates
Carroll County Legislative District 5
June 12, 2014
Contact ~ 443 340 8973
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Today Carmen Amedori has filed a formal complaint over election law violations by the campaign of Susan Krebs, candidate for the House of Delegates.
The complaint was filed with the office of State Prosecutor. The State Prosecutor investigates State election law violations, State public ethics law violations, State bribery law violations involving public officials or employees, misconduct in office by public officials or employees and extortion, perjury, or obstruction of justice related to any of the above.
In the complaint, Amedori asks the State Prosecutor to investigate the Krebs campaign’s use of a fictitious ID known as “Joseph Carroll.” A phony email address for Joseph Carroll has been used to send out false information to newspapers, bloggers, and other candidates in an effort to smear candidates who are opposing the incumbents in District 5.
“Using a fictitious ID to make false charges before state officials, including states attorney’s in two counties and election board officials is unethical,” Amedori said. “In addition these emails violate provisions of the election law concerning the distribution of campaign material and lack of authority lines.”
The letter of complaint to the State Prosecutor is attached with supporting documents.
690 Tram Way ~ Westminster, MD 21158 ~ 4433408973
Candidate for House of Delegates ~ Legislative District 5
Emmet C. Davitt, Esq.
Office of State Prosecutor
300 East Joppa Road
Hampton Plaza, Suite 410
Towson, Maryland 21286-3152
Dear Mr. Davitt:
I wish to file a complaint against Susan Krebs, candidate for the House of Delegates,
District 5, and her campaign for creating a fictitious identity and making false representations to
state officials, including the States Attorneys of Carroll County and Worcester County and the
local election officials in Carroll County.
I have attached a letter from Sen. Joseph Getty to Daniel Friedman, counsel to the
Maryland General Assembly, which outlines the series of campaign emails sent by the fictitious
identity of the Krebs campaign through the email address ••JosephCarroll543@yahoo.com .”
There are several people who have had interactions with Joseph Carroll and can provide
you with evidence that the individual behind the fictitious identity is a high-ranking member of
the Susan Krebs for delegate campaign team.
I believe that this creation of a fictitious identity involves impersonation before and
making false representations to state officials that constitutes a violation of state laws. Specific to
the election code under your jurisdiction, I believe the challenge against my voter registration by
a fictitious individual would violate Section 16-101. I also believe that as an overt act of a
campaign committee to smear challengers in the District 5 Delegates race, the distribution of
campaign information by a fictitious identity is a violation of Section 13-401.
Please feel free to contact me for additional information about these apparent election law
Candidate for House of Delegates
Authority: Friends of Carmen Amedori, Cynthia Armacost, Treasurer
Senator Joe Getty files formal Complaint with MGA General Counsel for Investigation into claims that a false person with false Identity was using smear tactics in Campaign against Carmen Amedori and Josh Stonko
I have the emails in question, there are to many of them to post out here on my website, but if you are interested in reading them, you can email me at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Rawlings-Blake voices concern over immigrant shelter – Obama administration considering vacant Baltimore office complex
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake — who has gained a national reputation for welcoming Hispanic families to Baltimore — joined a growing chorus of Maryland officials Tuesday raising concerns over a proposal to turn a vacant office building in the city into a shelter for immigrant children largely from Central America.
Rawlings-Blake said she has “serious concerns” about an idea being explored by the Obama administration to retrofit the massive office complex on North Greene Street known as Metro West to help contain a recent surge in unaccompanied children who are crossing the border illegally.
The federal government is scrambling to find space to shelter the young immigrants, most of whom are fleeing violence in Central America. About 9,500 children were caught at the Southwest border in May — a 300 percent increase over the same period last year.
“I understand that it is an urgent concern of the Obama administration to find safe places for these young people,” Rawlings-Blake told The Baltimore Sun. “We have to take a look at that and make sure we’re not doing more harm than good by using a facility that is really not fit for the purpose.”
Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Ben Cardin — both Democrats — have said they oppose the idea.
A sudden influx of children would likely add pressure to already strained city social services, schools and public safety resources. Maryland officials have said they don’t yet know when such a facility might open, how many children would be housed or whether the administration is considering a temporary or permanent shelter.
Neither the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is coordinating the effort to care for the children, nor the General Services Administration, which controls the Metro West complex, has responded to questions from The Sun about the proposal.
The site, a few blocks north of the proposed $152 million mixed-use project called the Superblock, has been considered a potential cornerstone for the redevelopment of Baltimore’s West Side.
The 1.1 million-square-foot complex was home to about 1,600 Social Security Administration employees until they were moved to another campus this year.
In Washington, Senate Democrats led by Mikulski on Tuesday proposed doubling the amount of funding available to address the surge in children, increasing spending to nearly $2 billion for shelter capacity and other services. That increase, which would come from other federal programs, was added to an appropriations bill that is, at best, still months from winning final approval.
Mikulski, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, described the situation as a “humanitarian crisis that demands our immediate attention.”
The full committee is expected to vote on the increase Thursday.
Metro West would be one of several sites across the country used to house the children. Other new shelters — including one at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and another at Fort Sill in Oklahoma — have been set up to accommodate between 575 to 1,200 people.
Rawlings-Blake has gained attention beyond the city’s borders for courting immigrants as part of her administration’s effort to grow Baltimore by 10,000 families over the next decade. She won praise from advocacy groups for signing an executive order in 2012 that prohibits city police officers from asking about a person’s citizenship status.
The mayor said her concerns about the site are consistent with her administration’s broader goals.
“My focus is on making sure we find the best possible fit for those young people,” she said. “They aren’t joining our community. They are being temporarily housed until they can be connected with a responsible adult. If, God forbid, my child was separated from me, I would want them to be in the best possible facility. I don’t know if the Social Security Administration building is that facility.”
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, a Baltimore Democrat whose district includes the site, is reserving judgment on the idea.
“The proposal is still being developed,” he said. “We have few details regarding what would be required in order for this site to meet the extensive health, safety and educational needs of unaccompanied minors.”
Gov. Martin O’Malley has declined to comment on the proposal.
The General Services Administration, which manages federal property, began the process of selling the 34-year-old Metro West complex in August. It has solicited ideas from developers.
Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-immigrant-children-follow-20140610,0,1737052.story#ixzz34KO6xw1N
Subject: REMINDER – Protest at Mexican Embassy in DCThursday, June 12 – Amnesty Supporter Congressman Cantor (R-VA) Defeated!
|Help Save Maryland Action Alert
|Action Alert – Help Save Maryland is Joining With Conservative Victory PAC and other concerned organizations around the region for a protest at the Mexican Embassy in DC.
As you know, the Mexican Government has been illegally holding American Marine SGT. Andrew Tahmooressi for mistakenly straying across the border. He now sits in a jail cell while our government does nothing for his release.
Keep in mind the Keystone Cop Mexican Border Guards Organization makes the Obama Administration border security plan actually look legitimate.
For a few pesos, anyone can cross the border heading north to get a piece of the American welfare state – Mexicans, Central Americans (especially 60,000 plus children, MS-13 and Latin Kings from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, etc.), Iranians, Chechens, and the like.
These so-called immigrants are the clientele of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), CASA of Maryland and Attorney General Eric Holder.
We have about 20 million illegal aliens in this country who “strayed” across the border. Rather than sitting in jail, they are encumbering American jobs, using American schools, social services, welfare, in-state college tuition, and driving with licenses on our roads with impunity from the law.
But one American, Marine SGT. Andrew Tahmooressi, makes one mistaken turn driving near the Mexican border and somehow those sleepy, corrupt Mexican Border guards grab him.
Tahmooressi, a Marine who actually served with “honor and distinction” in Afghanistan, now sits in a Mexican prison.
It’s time for action by American citizens.
Please join us:
Thursday, June 12, 10AM – 12 Noon
In Front of the Mexican Embassy
1911 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, DC (a few blocks over from the White House)
Metro: Red Line to the Farragut North Station, or the Orange/Blue lines to Farragut West Station – head towards Pennsylvania Ave and 19th Street.
Signage will be provided, but bring American Flags, Gadsden Flags or other to the event! Bring a friend. Local restaurants available for drinks, etc.
Contact: Brad Botwin, Director, Help Save Maryland.org,
Eric Cantor’s Defeat Was in the Immigration Tea Leaves
By Emma DumainPosted at 9:06 p.m. on June 10
Many immigration advocates thought Eric Cantor’s expected primary victory against his anti-immigration challenger would embolden the House majority leader to put an immigration overhaul on the floor this summer.
That theory, or at least that closely held hope, was obliterated Tuesday evening, as the Virginia Republican suffered a stunning defeat at the hands of university professor Dave Brat.
The tea leaves for Cantor’s fate might have been read by the most prescient political observers two weeks ago in his home district of Richmond, where Brat held a press conference on the steps of the state capitol building to denounce the House’s No. 2 Republican for having the “most liberal” record on immigration of any sitting GOP lawmaker in Congress.
“Eric Cantor has been the No. 1 cheerleader in Congress for amnesty,” said Brat on May 28 to half a dozen reporters, referencing Cantor’s stated support for overhauling the nation’s immigration system and providing a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants, especially those brought into the country illegally by their parents.
“There is no Republican in this country,” Brat continued, “who is more liberal on immigration than Eric Cantor.”
At first blush, the statement sounded hyperbolic at best: Cantor has consistently held the party’s establishment position that rewriting the immigration code is an important priority but always stopped far short of supporting the Senate’s immigration bill, much loathed by Republicans, and Cantor stuck to the leadership talking point that an immigration overhaul was stalled because of distrust of President Barack Obama.
He backed the immigration principles released by GOP leaders in January although only a tiny minority of the conference were willing to follow suit and go on the record to back them.
(Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)
He had generally kept his distance on the issue from Democrats or rank-and-file Republicans pushing the hardest for an immigration overhaul, like Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., or the three House Republicans who signed onto the House Democrats’ pseudo-companion bill to the Senate legislation: Reps. David Valadao and Jeff Denham, both of California, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
And Cantor, fearing the wrath of staunch and Tea Party conservatives on immigration, tacked to the far-right as the primary drew near. In campaign literature, he issued statements using calling touting his role in opposing “amnesty” and he was accused by Democrats of slow-walking immigration legislation out of fear of retribution from opponents.
Brat accused Cantor of trying to overplay his opposition to advancing an immigration bill after he had already carved out a record of being in favor of one. His rhetoric was loud, confrontational and provocative, crafting a narrative for his base that was hard to drown out as Cantor went about his business in Washington, D.C.
Brat purposefully held his May 28 press conference on the same day Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill., also visited Richmond to participate in a rally to implore Cantor not to bow to political pressure. Brat said that Gutierrez and Cantor were “in cahoots,” with Gutierrez’ visit designed to actually bolster Cantor by feigning outrage over Cantor’s allegedly manufactured anti-immigrant stance.
Gutierrez at the time denied he was there for political purposes.
“People might think we’re here because there’s a primary next week. Nothing could be farther from the truth,” Gutierrez told supporters assembled at his event, organized by CASA de Virginia, many of whom held signs reading “Cantor: the one man blocking immigration reform,” and “Eric Cantor: Give us a vote.”
“The primary is really irrelevant to us,” Gutierrez continued. “We’re here because the majority leader, Eric Cantor, controls the agenda of the Congress of the United States. And we have come here to say … stop being an obstacle, stop being in the way.”
Like it or not, Gutierrez will have his wish in January.
But while Gutierrez might not have been looking to oust Cantor, CASA de Virginia ultimately appeared to have a different agenda. Following Cantor’s concession speech on Tuesday night, about 70 immigration activists affiliated with the organization stormed his campaign headquarters.
“Congressman Cantor should have listened to his constituents and this is why he lost,” said one activist who hails from Cantor’s district, Raul Benitez, in a statement.
“Eric Cantor lost because he was a pretend tea partier,” added Lindolfo Carballo, a leader of the Tuesday protest. “Voters, faith and business leaders, and more all agree that we need a real leader to end the suffering of our families.”
Pro-immigration overhaul groups also weighed in on Tuesday to attribute Cantor’s loss to his alleged anti-immigration stance.
“Let’s be clear: Eric Cantor was no friend of immigration reform. He’s been the main person in the House blocking a vote on citizenship, and he proudly campaigned on his opposition to reform,” said America’s Voice executive director Frank Sharry in a written statement, alluding to Cantor’s recent move to block consideration of an amendment on the floor to the fiscal 2015 defense authorization bill that would have let undocumented immigrations attain citizenship in exchange for military service.
“Too bad Rep. Cantor didn’t steal a page from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who leaned into the issue, was unapologetic about his principled stand and won his primary handily,” Sharry said. “Elections are referendums on an incumbent’s leadership ability. Graham won big. Cantor lost big.”
When young illegal immigrants cross border, Obama gives them a lawyer
By Byron York | June 9, 2014 | 6:22 pm
A few days ago Majority Leader Eric Cantor released the House Republican legislative agenda for this summer. Lawmakers will work on job creation, energy, Veterans Affairs, taxes and more – but not on immigration reform.
It’s hard to find a more telling sign that an overhaul of the nation’s immigration system is dead, at least for this year and perhaps for longer.
|‘Since October, more than 47,000 children traveling without parents have been caught…a 92 percent increase over the same period last year.”
In the Senate, with a supportive Democratic majority and extensive bipartisan cooperation, it took five months of intensive work, from January to June 2013, to pass the Gang of Eight comprehensive reform bill.
The House, on the other hand, has a Republican majority that mostly opposes reform, and almost no bipartisan cooperation. Add to that the fact that it is already June of an election year, with the coming fall consumed by campaigning, and it’s clear a big immigration reform bill – or even a series of smaller ones – has no chance.
It’s not unusual for rumors to go around that Speaker John Boehner has some sort of plan to pass reform after Republican members have cleared primary challenges. But nobody, not even the best-connected Hill insiders, seems to know what the alleged plan is, or whether it really exists.
Of course, such a plan, were it put into action, would be opposed by an overwhelming majority of House Republicans. Passing it with Democratic votes would mean political death for Boehner. But the rumors still pop up.
The fact is, when it comes to immigration, nobody trusts anybody in the House. Republicans and Democrats don’t trust each other, Republicans don’t trust each other, and Republicans, and even some Democrats, don’t trust the White House.
There’s a significant group of House Republicans who suspect Boehner and Cantor might try to use the passage of any immigration-related bill, no matter how small, to press for a much larger reform package. So just to be safe, they don’t want to pass anything.
And now, reform prospects have been dimmed further by the administration’s response to a building wave of illegal immigrants attempting to cross into the U.S. from Mexico. “Since October, more than 47,000 children traveling without parents have been caught trying to cross the southwest border,” the New York Times reported recently, “a 92 percent increase over the same period last year.”
How did the administration react? On Friday, it announced the formation of something called “Justice AmeriCorps” to provide taxpayer-funded lawyers to help those young illegal immigrants fight deportation. “We’re taking a historic step to strengthen our justice system and protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of society,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
There’s little doubt Obama has encouraged a surge of new illegal immigrants to try to enter the U.S. The entire thrust of administration policy has been to end or curtail deportations of young people. Word gets out in Mexico and Central America. More come. And when they come illegally, the president’s reaction is to give them a lawyer. So even more will come in the future.
That doesn’t create confidence among Republicans who doubt Obama’s commitment to border enforcement. “Everything the administration is doing is spurring on more illegal immigration, telling would-be border crossers to make the trek because the U.S. will spend whatever it takes to keep you here and unite your extended family in America,” says a Hill aide opposed to comprehensive reform. “Tax-paying American citizens fighting to comply with the IRS or the EPA must wonder: Where’s my free lawyer? One group of people has to follow all the rules and pay all the costs, and the other group doesn’t.”
Since the beginning of the nearly two-year reform fight, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who championed comprehensive reform in the Senate but has now cooled on his own bill, warned that President Obama would act by himself if Congress didn’t.
“I believe that this president will be tempted, if nothing happens in Congress, to issue an executive order as he did for the Dream Act kids a year ago,” Rubio said in August 2013, “where he basically legalizes 11 million people by the sign of a pen.”
Well, nothing is going to happen in Congress. After November, Obama will be 100 percent lame duck, with no more elections to worry about. He might do precisely what Rubio predicted. Or, with a crisis of his own creation building on the Mexican border, he might hesitate to make things even worse. But one thing is sure: He won’t get any help from Capitol Hill.
I will be posting the story once I have my letters to the editor submitted across all of District 2. We must make sure that the Democratic choice, Nick Casey, Pro Life and Pro Coal and Pro 2nd Amendment takes this seat over Alex Mooney, who is anti coal, and supports The Green Energy Liberal Agenda. Alex Mooney also has issues with Ethics, I guess he feels he is above them, but according to one Chat Transcript that was sent to me via email, he is a Rich Politician who does not care about you unless you are supporting him.
Alex Mooney is a self absorbed, lying, Career Establishment Politician who couldn’t hold his weight and Maryland and was literally chased out of the state. I recently spoke with one Md State Republican Senator assistant, who state, the Republican Party in Maryland could not get rid of him soon enough and many of the Republicans in Elected seats were extremely happy to see him go, well so were many of us, but we are not happy that he ended up over here in West Virginia. He is like a bad dream that keeps coming back to haunt you, much like Martin O’Malley of Maryland, in fact, Alex Mooney supports Illegal Immigration in this Country, so he has that in common with the Governor of Maryland. I have that in a chat transcript as well. Which is why it is so important to make sure you do not vote for Mooney in the General Election, vote for Nick Casey and Mickey Mouse before you cast a vote for Alex “The Carpetbagger” Mooney.
Again, more to come soon.
Subject: Help Save Maryland – Amnesty Supporters Getting Frantic – Stand and Fight
LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON POST
“My Kingdom for an Ombudsman”
Re: “Pressing for reform with children’s arrests”, Sunday, May 4, 2014, Wash Post and “Joining the ‘Dreamers’”, Sunday, May 4, 2014, Wash Post
What can you say about the new Washington Post management team that doesn’t feel the need to retain any modicum of balance or fairness in their reporting, especially on the issue of immigration reform? The two highly slanted articles referenced were prepared by some of the Post’s top staffers whom without careful oversight have a propensity to write more like drug store novelists then actual reporters presenting all the facts.
Despite statements by the Washington Post that reporters are held accountable for accuracy and fairness by multiple sources, Nakamura and Constable seemingly did not get the memo. Neither article has one iota of counterpoint journalism which highlights the actual economic, financial or social costs of illegal immigration to U.S. citizens. Instead readers are subjected in one article to the exotic adventures of illegal immigrant minors being trained and used as arrest targets to garner media coverage. In the other article, I suppose readers were expected to now stop focusing on Hispanic illegal immigrants, the vast majority of all illegal immigrants in the country because the Post miraculously uncovered one South Korean student in Virginia without legal presence.
Overall, readers were effectively forced to blindly approve the reported lawless activities (living, driving and working without legal presence), questionable organizations and tactics (radical groups using children as political pawns as if illegal immigration somehow compares to the 60’s Civil Rights Movement), and a fait accompli that President Obama’s Executive Order created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is the permanent law of the land (temporary two-year action).
One would think the Washington Post would show some concern and compassion for the 20 million American citizens who are unemployed and struggling to support their families and dreams.
Director, Help Save Maryland.org
MORE MARYLAND “DREAMERS” IN ACTION
ANOTHER BLACK AMERICAN IN PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PAYS THE ULTIMATE PRICE FOR THE LACK OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. NOT FAR FROM CASA OF MARYLAND HEADQUARTERS.
“Teens commit crime ‘in order to gain notoriety’ within a gang, Prince George’s police say”
By Lynh Bui and Ovetta Wiggins, Published: May 15 , Washington Post
A man found dead along the Northwest Branch Trail in Langley Park on Saturday may have been fatally stabbed by three teenagers seeking to “gain notoriety” within a gang, authorities said Thursday.
Police charged Nelson Rivera-Anaya, 15; Angel Contreras, 14; and a 13-year-old with first-degree murder in connection with the death of 19-year-old Akinlkey Osafa Warner, authorities said. Officials did not release the name of the 13-year-old, who by law cannot be charged as an adult.
Two of the suspects are students at Buck Lodge Middle School in Adelphi and the third is a former student there. Police said all three might have connections to the MS-13 gang.
Warner’s father, Orin Warner, said his son was “a hard worker” who was studying criminal justice at Prince George’s County Community College. “He wanted to be somebody,” Orin Walker said. His son also planned to enlist in the military next year. “He wanted to make something of his life,” he said.
Investigators think that Warner went to the park Saturday with three people he knew, including one who was there for a possible drug sale, police said. During the alleged transaction, Warner and the three people with him were assaulted.
Police were called to a secluded section of the park, near 15th Avenue and Quebec Street, about 11:30 p.m. and found Warner suffering from multiple stab wounds, authorities said.
Detectives do not think that Warner was associated with a gang or directly involved in the alleged drug sale, said Lt. William Alexander, a county police spokesman. But he added that police are “still investigating the nature of the relationships between all involved.”
Police Capt. Jimmy Simms said that it is “very unusual” for juveniles to be charged in homicide cases but not unheard of.
“It doesn’t happen very often,” said Simms, who is with the county’s homicide division. “While there’s satisfaction in bringing closure for a victim’s family, it is also very tragic for the families of the juveniles involved in the crime.”
On Monday, shortly after learning that the suspects had a connection to Buck Lodge, police placed two officers at the school, according to Rex Barrett, the director of security services for the school system. The additional security will remain in place at the school, which is outfitted with cameras and electronic entry, until classes end next month.
Nelson withdrew from Buck Lodge on April 4, according to school officials, but the other two teens arrested were still enrolled. Nelson and Angel are in jail and the 13-year-old is being held at the Cheltenham Youth Facility, police said.
The school system has also added a security investigator to patrol the school, Barrett said.
“Buck Lodge has been off the radar,” Barrett said, noting that the school has had no violent incidents this year and previously had only one security assistant.
The county has worked for years to identify students who might engage in “negative behavior” so it can provide mentoring, counseling and other resources. Barrett said that overall incidents in county schools have dropped about 15 percent this year.
School officials plan to work more closely with the police department and parents during the next school year to identify at-risk students, including those who might join a gang, Barrett said.
“We’re trying to set up schools as a sanctuary,” Barrett said. “Our goal is to keep kids in school, help them to be a success, to graduate and go to college, and that requires keeping them safe.”
Schools Chief Kevin M. Maxwell served as principal of Buck Lodge and Northwestern High School, which are both in the Hyattsville area, for more than a decade. He said although he understands residents’ angst, he wanted to assure parents that “nobody should think that our schools are a place to feel fearful.”
“Gangs don’t organize around schools, they organize around communities,” Maxwell said. “It’s not like [gangs] are setting up shop in Buck Lodge, or any other school in the county for that matter.”
Warner had come to the United States in 2010 from Guyana with his family and worked as a cashier at a Giant in Northwest Washington while going to school, his father said. “We’re trying for the American dream like everyone else,” said Orin Warner, who added that his son had recently saved enough money to buy a new Acura. “He’s a very good child.”
Prince George’s police are asking anyone with information on this case to call 1-866-411-TIPS.
Arelis R. Hernández contributed to this report.
INTERESTING INTERVIEW WITH TEXAS CONGRESSMAN LAMAR SMITH ON OBAMA/DHS RELEASING ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS!
“Lamar Smith: ICE Release of Illegal Immigrants Like ‘Jailbreak’”
Thursday, 15 May 2014 04:30 PM
SO THIS IS WHERE ALL THE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ARE TAKING PLACE NEAR THE BORDER WITH MEXICO
“State officials slap feds: New Mexico board orders Forest Service fence opened”
Clash over cattle follows feds’ dispute with Bundy
DUMB QUOTE OF THE WEEK -
“If the Republicans don’t pass immigration reform this year, they shouldn’t bother to run a candidate in 2016. Think about it. Think about who the voters are”
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue
BETTER IDEA – Maybe U.S. Chamber of Commerce members should start hiring American citizens for a change. Requiring usage of the Federal E-Verify Employment screening system would greatly help the cause and shutdown loudmouth bullies like Donohue.
THE THERAPY SESSIONS MAY BE HAVING A POSITIVE EFFECT!
“GOP: We’ll move immigration reform if we take back Senate”
By Alexander Bolton – 05/15/14 06:00 AM EDT TheHill.com
Senate Republicans say they’ll try to pass immigration reform legislation in the next two years if they take back the Senate in November.
The Republicans say winning back the Senate will allow them to pass a series of bills on their own terms that have a better chance of winning approval in the House.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a central member of the coalition that passed a comprehensive reform bill in the Senate last year, said he would craft a better legislative approach if Republicans control the upper chamber in 2015.
That would give his party a chance to pass immigration legislation before the presidential election, when Hispanic voters will be crucial to winning the White House.
But Democrats are threatening that if the House does not pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year the issue will be dead in 2015 and 2016, sinking the GOP brand among Hispanics ahead of the 2016 election.
“I certainly think we can make progress on immigration particularly on topics like modernizing our legal immigration system, improving our mechanisms for enforcing the law and I think if you did those things you could actually make some progress on addressing those who are illegally,” Rubio said Wednesday evening of the prospects of passing immigration reform in 2015.
He said the Senate next year should pass immigration reform through a series of sequential bills that build upon each other to enact comprehensive reform. This approach would be more palatable in the House, he said.
Rubio said he was not fully satisfied with the comprehensive bill that passed the Senate last year, adding Republicans would “absolutely” pass better legislation if they pick up six or more seats in the midterm election.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who is poised to take over as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he will vote to pass immigration legislation in the next Congress if Republicans ascend to the majority.
“We’d start over again next year,” Grassley said, when asked about the next steps if Congress does not pass immigration reform by September.
“I’d make a decision about whether you could get more done by separate bills or a comprehensive bill,” he said.
Grassley said he may have supported the 2013 Senate immigration bill if it had tougher border security and interior enforcement provisions.
“For that reason, not for the legal immigration stuff that’s in it,” he said, explaining why he voted against it.
Some Republicans, such as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), strongly oppose increasing legal immigration.
“Washington can’t rewrite the law of supply and demand: we can’t rebuild our middle class if we continue to bring in record numbers of new workers for companies to hire at the lowest available wage,” he said.
Only 14 Republicans voted for the Senate bill, which conservative critics panned for giving too much discretion to the Obama administration in deciding how its border security requirements would be met.
Senate Republicans believe that House Republicans would be more likely to pass immigration reform if the midterm election shifts control of the upper chamber because it would be easier to negotiate a Senate-House compromise.
House conservatives have opposed bringing immigration legislation to the House floor because they fear even a narrow bill could be used as a vehicle to jam the sprawling Senate bill through the House. That threat would be less dire if the Senate passed a series of smaller immigration reform bills.
“It could pass if we break it down into smaller pieces,” said Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas). “[The House] has always been amenable to passing smaller bills on a step-by-step basis.”
Once Congress passes legislation to tighten border security and interior enforcement, it could pave the way for a deal legalizing an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, expanding work visas and enlarging the flow of legal immigration, Senate Republicans argue.
Democrats, however, would balk at reforming the nation’s immigration laws through a variety of separate bills.
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the lead author of the comprehensive Senate immigration bill, signaled Wednesday that Democrats would not be willing to join in such an effort.
He threatened to force Republicans to pay the price in the presidential election if they do not agree to pass a reform by year’s end.
He said House Republicans have a narrow window between early June and the August recess to act.
“I am saying that if Speaker [John] Boehner [Ohio], [House Majority] Leader [Eric] Cantor [Va.], and other Republican leaders refuse to schedule a vote on immigration reform during this window, it will not pass until 2017 at the earliest,” he said on the Senate floor Wednesday.
“I believe it would then pass in 2017 after Republicans take a shellacking in the Presidential election,” he added.
Schumer said in a subsequent interview that the reform effort would be dead because the conservative political dynamics of the 2016 presidential primary would pull the GOP too far to the right to pass legislation in 2015 or 2016.
Rubio, who is mulling a White House bid, disputed Schumer’s analysis.
“I don’t agree with that,” he said. “I understand there’s some conventional wisdom out there in that regard but I don’t believe that to be true.”
He said he does not plan to walk away from immigration reform in the next Congress, even if he pursues a presidential bid.
Rubio said he would support an immigration reform push in 2015 as a piecemeal process, the same approach endorsed by Cornyn and House Republican leaders.
“What I do think is possible is to make progress on it in a sequential way that builds on each bill that we pass,” he said.
But Rubio said he doesn’t see himself supporting a bill that tries to overhaul the entire immigration system in one swoop.
“I don’t think a comprehensive bill can pass. I don’t want to us to waste another two years on an approach that has no chance of passing,” he said. “This idea that immigration reform means you have to all do it in one bill is ridiculous. It’s the reason why they haven’t succeeded doing anything on it.”
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/206177-gop-well-move-immigration-reform-if-we-take-back-senate#ixzz32JEsMiFW
Brad Botwin, Director, Help Save Maryland.org
SAVE THE DATE – - THURSDAY, MAY 22, 4:30PM – 7PM — JOIN HELP SAVE MARYLAND IN ACTION – MORE INFORMATION COMING SOON
Right fights back on immigration
By Alexander Bolton – 05/02/14 06:00 AM EDT
Conservative activists have launched an election-year effort to get Republicans to sign a pledge that renounces President Obama’s immigration reform movement.
Critics of the Senate-passed immigration bill are copying a tactic that has proved wildly successful in battling tax increases.
They are pushing Republican candidates to sign a pledge to oppose three key components of Obama’s reform agenda. In the past week, it has become an issue in several competitive Republican primaries around the country.
It is modeled on the concept that anti-tax activist Grover Norquist made famous with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
Laura Ingraham, a popular conservative radio host, is squarely behind the effort, which is sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform Congressional Task Force. She is tracking which members of Congress and candidates sign the pledge.
In Mississippi, state Sen. Chris McDaniel, who is challenging Sen. Thad Cochran in the Republican primary, this week announced his support for the pledge during an appearance on Ingraham’s show.
“I did sign it and I believe in it,” he told her. “I think it’s time for us to focus on the America worker for a change. That should be our focus.
“What we’ve seen over the last many years is wage stagnation, we’ve seen growth in welfare programs, we’ve even seen shrinking workforce participation,” he added.
The pledge requires that signatories promise to oppose any form of work authorization for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in United States. It binds them to oppose legislation that would increase the number of legal immigrants allowed in the country and reject proposals to increase the number of guest workers.
New York Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney, who is challenging Rep. Richard Hanna in the Republican primary in New York’s 22nd Congressional District, has signed it. So have three Republicans running in the primary to replace retiring Rep. Spencer Bachus (R) in Alabama’s 6th District.
Cochran told The Hill Thursday that he would have to read the immigration pledge carefully before making a decision.
“I haven’t looked at it,” he said. “I think I’ll read it.”
He said he wouldn’t let his “opponent or any pressure group try to get commitments from me about how to vote on something that isn’t an issue before the Senate.”
Ingraham blasted Will Brooke, a businessman and prominent contender in the race for Bachus’s seat in Alabama, after he initially declined to sign the pledge.
“If you don’t sign this pledge, then you’re not someone who believes in true border enforcement and you’re someone, apparently, who trusts the Obama administration to implement immigration reform,” she said.
Ingraham touted to her listeners Brooke’s rivals, state Sen. Scott Beason, businessman Tom Vigneulle and state Rep. Paul DeMarco, for signing the pledge.
The rough treatment caused Brooke to change his mind quickly. His staff called Ingraham’s staff after the show to say the candidate would sign the pledge.
Renee Gamela, a spokesman for Hanna, did not respond to a request for comment on the pledge.
So far, former Wall Street trader and radio host Frank Roche, who is running to unseat Renee Ellmers (R) in North Carolina’s 2nd Congressional District, and economics professor David Brat, who is running against House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), have also signed the pledge. Ellmers and Cantor have not.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Thursday afternoon blasted House Republican leaders for not facing down conservatives in their party who oppose granting legal status to millions of immigrants.
“The reason the House has done nothing on immigration is because House Republicans have handed the gavel of leadership on immigration to far-right extremists like Congressman Steve King [(R-Iowa)],” he said in a fiery floor speech, making reference to one of the chief opponents of the Senate immigration bill.
Activists who oppose granting legal status to people living in the country illegally as well as higher immigration flows have stepped up their activity in the wake of recent signs that immigration reform legislation could hit the House floor this summer.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said over the April recess that he is hell-bent on passing immigration reform this year, according to The Wall Street Journal. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), the No. 4-ranking House Republican, said a bill could reach the floor by August.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which promotes lower immigration flows, said the pledge is useful because many Republicans state they are opposed to “amnesty” but nevertheless favor treating illegal immigrants nearly as leniently. He said these self-proclaimed anti-amnesty Republicans may also be tempted to support reforms that would greatly expand the rate of legal immigration.
“George W. Bush said he was against amnesty,” Krikorian noted. The Bush administration pushed comprehensive immigration reform legislation in 2006 and 2007.
“Grover’s pledge has been remarkably successful,” he added. “Pledges like this work best if they are very clear and simple.”
Schumer warned that Republicans would never win over Hispanic and other centrist voters as long as they continue to oppose immigration reform.
“If Republicans continue to kowtow to the hard right on immigration reform, they’ll consign themselves to being the minority party for a decade,” he said.
Proponents of immigration reform have touted recent statements by centrist Republicans pledging support for granting legal status to illegal immigrants.
Illinois GOP Reps. Aaron Schock and Adam Kinzinger announced late last month they would support legalization of people living in the United States illegally.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/205013-right-fights-back-on-immigration#ixzz31LyHk7jm <http://thehill.com/homenews/205013-right-fights-back-on-immigration#ixzz31LyHk7jm>
EDITORIAL: “No rooms for lawbreakers”
Supreme Court says it’s OK to tell illegals to ‘get out of Dodge’
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Wednesday, May 7, 2014
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says America should celebrate Cinco de Mayo by enacting an amnesty for illegal aliens. The U.S. Supreme Court celebrated the Mexican national holiday this week with a brighter idea.
The justices let stand a lower-court decision enabling municipal discrimination against lawbreakers. The city of Fremont, Neb., had adopted an ordinance barring landlords from renting apartments to illegal aliens. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the ordinance in a decision that is now binding.
“This is a final and complete victory for Fremont,” Kris W. Kobach, the ordinance author who is also the secretary of state of Kansas, said on hearing the news. “It is beyond question that every city in the [states of the] 8th Circuit has the ability to adopt the Fremont ordinance, word for word.” On Facebook, Mr. Kobach said, “The ACLU has been defeated.”
Enacted by voters four years ago, Fremont Ordinance 5165 has survived numerous legal challenges. An attempt to repeal the ordinance by popular vote in February failed, when nearly 60 percent of the voters ratified it.
The Fremont statute requires prospective tenants to obtain a $5 occupancy license and declare their immigration status before they can rent a residence. Police in Fremont, population 25,000, are enabled to check an occupancy license against a federal list of illegal aliens. When it finds one, the license is revoked.
The ordinance includes provisions requiring “all entities doing business in the city of Fremont that employ one or more persons” to register in the E-Verify program. Such an entity must “execute an affidavit stating that [it doesn't] knowingly employ any person who is an unauthorized alien.” These measures were not challenged, but legal challenges of the rental provisions required the city to solicit donations to a legal defense fund. Fremont is the county seat of Dodge County, so the ordinance tells illegals to “get out of Dodge.”
Liberals usually like criminal background checks, such as checks for prospective buyers of guns, but not to uncover lawbreakers in houses and apartment houses. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund argued before the appeals court that the ordinance is racist and unconstitutional. A three-judge lower court panel disagreed, and concluded that the ordinance neither discriminates against Hispanics nor interferes with federal immigration laws.
The losers in court vow to monitor enforcement of the ordinance and promise new lawsuits if tenants report discrimination. “There has to be a very serious opposition to these kinds of laws,” says Thomas Saenz, the general counsel of the defense fund, “because they’re anti-business and anti-human rights.”
Patchwork enforcement of immigration law is not the way to the rule of law, and the Fremont ordinance wouldn’t be necessary if the Obama administration would do its duty and effectively enforce the law at the border. The nation’s greatest strength is the regulated tide of immigrants, with its invitation to the melting pot. Immigrants who follow the rules are hurt most by the official conveyance of favors and subsidies to those who cheat the system.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/editorial-no-rooms-for-lawbreakers/#ixzz31M0JRyEf
“Immigration’s Impact on Republican Political Prospects, 1980 to 2012″
By James G. Gimpel April 2014
“The study led by the University of Maryland’s James G. Gimpel, confirms the center’s 2010 findings that mass immigration takes votes away from Republicans and gives them to Democrats. “Each one percentage-point increase in the immigrant share of a large county’s population,” Mr. Gimpel concludes, “reduces the Republican share of the two-party vote by nearly 0.6 percentage points, on average.”
The conclusions further note that the “enormous flow” of legal immigrants into the country — 29.5 million from 1980 to 2012 — “has remade and continues to remake the nation’s electorate in favor of the Democratic Party.” It’s no coincidence that Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections, and won the sixth only narrowly. No Republican presidential nominee since 1980 has won more than 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. Enactment of the Gang of Eight bill “would accelerate this process.”
This explains why House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is making “immigration reform” her top legislative priority and has gone on the road to push it.”
Mindless Quote of the Week
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday that immigrants living in the United States illegally are not going home, and that the U.S. has no practical way of forcing them to leave.
“They’re not going home. And so why don’t we give them a path to citizenship,” McCain asked at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy Jr. forum.
“There are not enough buses to deport them,” he added. “It’s de facto amnesty.”
“MORE FIBBING ABOUT IMMIGRATION REFORM – Mass deportations don’t top the Republican to-do list”
By William Chip, Monday, April 28, 2014
Immigration reform can be “comprehensive” only if it answers three crucial questions: What number of immigrants can we assimilate without burdening our infrastructure, schools, labor markets and welfare programs? Within that number, what priority should be given to relatives of prior immigrants, skilled workers and refugees? What humane but effective measures will deter immigration by those ineligible for visas?
These are tough questions, and they were not made any easier when House Speaker John A. Boehner last week derided members of his own caucus who think that finding the right answers is more important than getting the questions “off the table.” Surely, the right answers will be easier to find if we focus on the real choices to be made, not on false choices packaged as sound bites.
Foremost among the false choices driving the current immigration debate is that between granting permanent residence to the 11 million illegal aliens thought to be living here or else deporting them en masse. Among countless examples is a Feb. 12 statement to C-SPAN by Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat, in which he punctuated his call for a suspension of deportations by asking: “Can you imagine trying to round up 11 million people?”
In fact, if we don’t entice the whole illegal population to stay through a blanket offering of permanent legal residence, a great many of them will eventually go home on their own. Like Americans working overseas, they miss their native countries and their extended families.
Many are here to achieve a limited objective, such as building modest homes for their families in the villages where they were born. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, approximately 1.4 million illegal aliens returned to Mexico alone between 2005 and 2010.
To be sure, even without an amnesty, many illegal aliens will stay on indefinitely, living in the so-called “shadows.” Whether it is 2 million or 5 million, who has ever said that we should “round them all up” in order to deport them?
I have served for three decades on the advisory board of the nation’s oldest immigration reform organization and have met most of the politicians, advocates and pundits who support lower levels of immigration and better enforcement of immigration laws. Not one of them has ever promoted or even spoken of mass deportations as a viable tool of immigration policy.
Eleven million illegal aliens sounds like a lot of people, but according to the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics, the United States received 165 million foreign visitors in 2012. If we are helpless in the face of 11 million aliens who happen to be here today and aren’t disposed to leave, what are we to do with the 11 million aliens who may arrive in the next three weeks? They will come, often with families, to shop, see the sights, conduct business, attend school or fill temporary jobs, in most cases benefiting us as well as them.
However, in order to enjoy the benefits of those 11 million international visitors without being overwhelmed by overstayers, we cannot rely upon the “hard power” of arrest and deportation. We must depend instead on the “soft power” of withholding the means of a comfortable permanent residence, especially the opportunity to make a steady living.
Advocates of immigration reform understand this reality. In order to prevent the formation of a massive, new illegal population in the future, the comprehensive immigration bill passed by the Senate last year does not propose a more robust deportation program. Instead, it promises that all employers would eventually be required to verify that every new employee has a valid Social Security number.
In other words, a critical premise of “comprehensive” reform is that after reform is enacted, unlawfully present aliens will find it very difficult to get a job, will eventually run out of money and will quietly board a plane or a bus to go home. Deportation will be reserved for criminals and vagrants whose lifestyle permits them to reside here without honest work.
Yet, if mandatory employer verification will work for aliens coming here in the future, why not for illegal aliens who are already here? Amnesty advocates say that illegal aliens overwhelmingly come here to work, and I agree with them. Many are low-skilled laborers who change jobs frequently. Like the aliens on temporary work visas who labor beside them, illegal workers will become unemployable when their current jobs come to an end and, like their legal alien co-workers, will eventually need to go home. No need for mass deportations.
There may be a case for legalizing illegal aliens who were brought here as small children. There may also be a case for giving other illegal aliens a temporary residence permit to provide time for them to relocate their families and for their employers to find replacement workers from among the army of unemployed Americans.
However, such cases should be evaluated on their merits and not under the false supposition that the only alternative to blanket legalization of 11 million illegal aliens is “rounding them up.”
William Chip is a lawyer and a member of the Center for Immigration Studies’ board of directors.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/28/chip-more-fibbing-about-immigration-reform/#ixzz31M5l9HaW
Alex Mooney - Why You Should Not Vote For Mooney, District 2, Congress
For the last couple of days, a couple people have been trying to get answers from Alex Mooney regarding specific issues, and it always comes back as, if you are not a supporter, I will block you from my facebook page:
So last evening, someone who will remain anonymous for the time being, asked some very detailed questions to Mr. Mooney via Phone Call, therefore, being able to confirm or not confirm, is strictly left up to what you believe or not believe, however, the whole conversation that took place on the phone was emailed to me last evening. I find some answers to be, say, very astonishing, as I have always known alot of the truth about him and why he left Maryland and why he was forced to resign as MD GOP Chair in Maryland. I can not post the email with the Q and A currently until there has been further confirmation on what took place, but they were horrible answers that pretty much stated what I have come to know of Alex Mooney, a self centered, self absorbed politician who only cares about himself and not truly what representing the people is really about. He refused to answer questions regarding fund raising, stating, “No Comment”, referencing that he went out of state for just about all of his fund raising. I will tell you this, if he wins the R nomination in the Primary, I will support his democratic challenger and provide him with all the stuff I have on Alex.
As you can see in this article, while MD GOP Chair, he was busy raising money for a possible campaign run for Congress for retired Congressman, Roscoe Bartletts seat.
Alex Mooney Must Resign
Alex Mooney must resign.
When former state senator Alex Mooney won the race for MGOP chair two years ago, we warned that his biggest drawback wasn’t his ability to raise money or, organize, rather it was that he saw the position of MDGOP chair as a place holder position until he could seek another elected office.
Indeed, Mooney was an excellent fundraiser, just not for the party. While MDGOP was mired in $120,000 debt, he was busy raising $108,00 for a 2012 congressional campaign to replace Roscoe Bartlett. In the end, Mooney decided not to run. However, he filed a paperwork indicating he was keeping that money to run in 2014, and then he promptly took a job in Bartlett’s office.
Much hay was made of Mooney violating House ethics rules barring a congressional staffer from working for their boss while running to succeed them. However, that distracts from the real issue: that Mooney was focused more on running for Congress than his duties as MDGOP Chair.
In an unprecedented petition campaign, conservative activists, through MDPetitions.com, placed three measures on the ballot challenging Democratic overreach on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, gay marriage, and gerrymandering Maryland’s congressional redistricting map. While the Democratic machine organized and raised funds to defend their policies, there was no coordinated effort by MDGOP to ensure those laws were defeated at referendum. The defeat on questions 4 through 6, and to some extent question 7, lies squarely on Alex Mooney. Instead of organizing and raising money to win those races, Mooney was busy helping Roscoe Bartlett get shellacked by 20 points.
So what Alex did, was after resiging from the MD GOP, he stated that the money he raised for himself, he would use for a future possible run for office in Maryland.
Last year, Mooney considered running for the 6th congressional district seat held at the time by then-Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) — but ultimately backed off.
During the meeting with GOP leaders on Saturday, Mooney said he would not rule out seeking the seat at some point in the future, according to a participant. The seat was won in November by Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.), who was aided by a more favorable congressional map drawn by Democrats in the General Assembly.
Republicans, who are outnumbered 2-to-1 among Maryland voters, are also expected to face some tough fights in the legislature in 2014 because of new districts redrawn by the Democratic-led legislature last year.
Mooney said he will submit his official letter of resignation by March 1, allowing for the election of a new state party chairman on April 20.
So Alex Mooney ended up fleeing Maryland last year, stating he was exiled from Maryland, runs TV Ads here stating he had moved over her to retain his freedoms or rights, one or the other, but yet he was exiled?. Yet, within 6 months of moving to West Virginia, filed to run for Congress here. The money in donations that he got in Maryland while forming an exploratory campaign for Congress, over 100,000 was brought with him over to West Virginia to use in running for Congress here. Why didn’t he return the money to those who donated to him for a possible run later on in Maryland as he stated? Getting the picture now? A Career Politician who is constantly changing his mind and sometimes his views? Yesterday, the Journal ran an article on Alex Mooney on his fundraising, most of which was done out of the state of West Virginia, you will have to purchase the paper because it is not in electronic print as of yet, however, it clearly stated that he was more oft in Maryland and DC at the Capital Club, and Virginia than he was in West Virginia, apparently raising approx 10k, the rest from other surrounding states.
Stay tuned for all the details…..