Obama Amnesty: Legalize Foreigners, 'Take Over Host,' 'Push Citizens into Shadows'

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama Amnesty Plan: Legalize Foreigners, 'Take Over the Host,' 'Push Citizens into the Shadows'

March 5, 2015

It was supposed to be a phone call for Obama administration ears only. But hear it the radio host did, she says. And what she heard should make your blood run cold — and perhaps your rage hot. Obama’s amnesty plan is to use illegal aliens as “seedlings,” said the federal officials. They will “navigate, not assimilate,” as they “take over the host,” create a “country within a country” and start “pushing the citizens into the shadows.”

Welcome to the “fundamental transformation” of America.

The above was alleged by WCBM radio co-host Sue Payne in an interview with talk giant Mark Levin Thursday last week. Payne says that while at an immigration rally, she became privy to three conference calls in which 16 Obama administration officials — including Cecilia Muñoz, director of Obama’s White House Domestic Policy Council — discussed plans for what could only be called the final destruction of traditional America and the cementing of leftist hegemony. Muñoz, by the way, is perfectly suited to this task; she was once a senior vice president for the anti-American Hispanic lobbying organization the National Council of La Raza.

Oh, la raza means “the race” (I guess the whole “‘Hispanic’ is an ethnicity” thing doesn’t cut much ice with them).

Payne opened the interview by explaining that what Obama actually did on November 21 — the day he signed his supposed executive amnesty — was create the “Task Force on New Americans” (TFNA) for the purposes of implementing his legalization scheme. And it won’t be applied to just 5 million illegals, but “13 to 15 million to give protection [to] and move…on to citizenship,” reports Payne.

Payne then said that the illegals, labeled “seedlings,” would eventually “take over the host.” She continued, “And the immigrants will come out of the shadows, and what I got from the meetings was that they would be pushing the citizens into the shadows. They would be taking over the country; in fact, one of the members of the task force actually said that we would be developing a country within a country.”

To this nefarious end, the goal of the TFNA is to create a “welcoming feeling” in illegal-seeded localities, which would be redesignated “receiving communities.” They’d subsequently be transformed (fundamentally, I suppose) into what are labeled “emerging immigrant communities” — or as some would say, México Norte.

The officials also said, reports Payne, that for the seedlings to “grow” they needed “fertile soil” (a.k.a. your tax money). The officials stated that the legalized aliens needed to be redesignated as “refugees” and be given cash, medical care, credit cards for purchasing documents and — since many illegals will be older — Social Security so they can “age successfully within their country within a country,” to quote Payne. As she then put it, it’s “as if we were funding our own destruction here.”

Some may point out that Payne has no smoking gun (that we know of) in the form of, let’s say, a recording of the calls. But Levin vetted her and found her credible, calling the scheme “stunning” and reflective of “Mao’s China.” I believe her as well, but it doesn’t even matter. She simply confirms what I’ve been warning of for years and years over and over again: The Left is importing their voters, engaging in demographic warfare and authoring the death of the republic.

Mind you, legal immigration itself is a sufficient vehicle for this. Ever since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia, thus growing leftist constituencies that vote for socialistic Democrats by approximately a four-to-one margin; in contrast and as Pat Buchanan pointed out, “[N]early 90 percent of all Republican votes in presidential elections are provided by Americans of European descent.” This, along with hatred and bigotry, is a major reason why Obama and his ilk want to destroy white America.

But liberals crave immediate gratification, and amnesty greatly accelerates this process. Legalize 15 million socialist voters clamoring for handouts, have them bring in relatives via chain migration — give them Social Security numbers that they can use to vote (as is Obama’s plan) — and tomorrow’s leftist dystopia is today. I predicted this in 2008, by the way, writing:

The coup de grace Obama will use against rightist opposition is mostly embodied in one word: amnesty. This, along with some other measures, will both grow the Hispanic voting block and ingratiate Obama to it. This will enable him to create a powerful coalition of blacks, young voters and Hispanics that, along with the older whites he will be able to retain, will constitute an insurmountable electoral force. And this is why amnesty has long been a dream of the Democrats. Even easier than brainwashing new voters (which the media and academia specialize in) is importing them.

Admittedly, I can be criticized since the above article is titled “How Obama Will Ensure His Victory in 2012.” But titles are hooks as much as anything else. And since I don’t have a crystal ball, just a not yet crystallized brain, I’d never claim to be able to perfectly predict timing. It also turned out that Obama and the 2009 to 2011Democrat House and Senate were preoccupied with instituting ObamaCare, and that the liberal legislators were perhaps too cowardly to face re-election having passed amnesty. Regardless, I have another prediction, one I hope you’ll take seriously:

The chances are slim to nil that Obama’s amnesty will be stopped legislatively.


Obama against John Boehner is the Beltway Brawler vs. the Beltway Bawler. Moreover, I suspect establishment Republicans — who just refused to defund Obama’s scheme — want executive amnesty. Why? Because the issue has been an albatross around their necks. And while they don’t have the guts or desire to really stand against Invasion USA, they also know voting for amnesty would mean electoral disaster. So, let Obama act unilaterally, huff and puff a bit with a wink and a nod while doing nothing of substance, and “Voila!” The issue is off the table with plausible deniability of complicity.

And the courts? They may uphold the recent injunction against Obamnesty, but there’s no saying Obama won’t ignore the courts (he assuredly understands that judicial review is a jurist invention). And, anyway, amnesty was always only a matter of time with today’s cultural trajectory. Yet this cloud does have a silver lining.

The Left was very successful boiling the frog slowly with the legal importation of socialist voters and the gradual transformation of our culture via entertainment, the media and academia. But liberals’ childish haste may have led to a tactical error. By going all in on executive orders and amnesty — by transitioning from evolutionary to revolutionary change and turning the burner up high — the Left risks rousing that frog from his pan. And how should it jump?

Obama said after the November Republican victory that it was his “profound preference and interest to see Congress act on a comprehensive immigration reform bill” (emphasis added), but otherwise he’ll work via executive orders. He also offered the GOP a deal: “You send me a bill that I can sign, and those executive actions go away.”

Translation: My preference is to follow the Constitution.

But my will be done — one way or the other.

How to respond? Question: what do you do when someone says “My preference is to follow the game’s rules, but if I can’t win that way, I’ll have to cheat”? You can:

1) Continue losing; be a Charlie Brown sucker who keeps thinking that this time Lucy won’t pull the football away.
2) Cheat right back (hard to do without judges in your pocket).
3) Stop playing the game.

Now, conservatives, consummate ladies and gentlemen that they are, consistently choose option one. Far be it from them to violate the “law” even when it’s unconstitutional and therefore lawless. But I prefer option three.

This means nullification. Note that the Constitution is the contract Americans have with each other. And what happens when one party subject to a contract continually violates it in order to advantage itself, aided and abetted by corrupt judges?

The contract is rendered null and void.

Remember, cheaters don’t stop cheating until forced to. Governors and their legislatures need to man-up and tell the feds, “You like acting unilaterally and unconstitutionally? Two can play that game.” And this means not just ignoring Obama’s amnesty dictates, but nullifying a multitude of other things as well.

The other option is demographic and cultural genocide and the politics attending that. The Left knows this, too. Obama noted that growing “diversity hinders conservative priorities,” wrote the DC last month. Congressman Kurt Schrader (D-OR) said recently that amnesty “will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years.” And an ex-advisor to former Prime Minister Tony Blair confessed in 2009 that the goal of the British Labour Party’s massive culture-rending immigration was to “rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

Do you get it yet?

Defy and Nullify.

The alternative is to walk legally and quietly into that good night, going out not with a bang but a whimper, muttering something about 2016, the Supreme Court and pixie dust.

[American Patriot]

There was a whole "Country within a country" conversation about this on FB a couple of days ago and of course Mr. Bracken, me and a few others were dead in the middle of that one. lol

I see the US and the states being broken into several areas of Sharia law, no-go zones, Mexican/Hispanic Atzalan types taking areas over (like gangs), everyone keeping the cops out and most Americans have been inured to all of this.

[Ryan Ruck]

As I'm sure most of you know, my younger brother is a deputy sheriff.

This morning after he got off shift he sent me a note about an encounter he had with some illegals last night.

He had picked up 2 of them (didn't give the details) and contacted ICE about them as he is supposed to. Well, thanks to Obama's new policies, ICE is no longer allowed to hold them in jail prior to interview and deportation. They are released and expected to show up to the interview and deportation voluntarily.

Because we all know how reliably they'll show up to get shipped out on their own...

[American Patriot]

I'd contact ICE, tell them "We'll hold them until your court date... don't want them walking and all that...."

[Toad]

ICE is no longer allowed to hold them in jail prior to interview and deportation. They are released and expected to show up to the interview and deportation voluntarily.

Because we all know how reliably they'll show up to get shipped out on their own...

Oh, Jezzez fuq. A policy built to fail. What is the point other that wasted time, money, and manpower. FFS!

What if I were to fly to Japan, break the airport, hop the fence and I was caught? Would I get a tap on the hand and be allowed to stay as long as I want? F-k no. I'd be arrested, questioned, deported. I'd be listed on a refusal of entry list. What's so hard about this? Get serious, crack a whip, smack some azz. No nation is soverign unless it controls it's borders.

[American Patriot]

And therein lies the problem, Toad...


You're assuming someone WANTS to do something about this.

They DO NOT.

[vector7]

DHS SECRETARY THREATENS US SHERIFFS: Obama Will Cut Their Grants If Congress Does Not Fund Amnesty

Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, February 3, 2015, 8:24 PM

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson threatened US sheriffs today. Johnson told the sheriffs that they will not receive federal grants they are counting on if the Republican Congress does not fund amnesty.



Sheriff Justin Smith from Larimer County Colorado posted this tonight on his Facebook page:
I received a very interesting veiled threat letter from Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security addressed to all police chiefs and sheriffs around the country.

His letter made it clear that if Congress didn’t send President Obama the DHS funding bill that he wanted (rubberstamping the president’s executive amnesty), local and state public safety agencies would not receive federal grants they were counting on because the president would veto the DHS funding bill.

Let me get this straight – the president believes he has the authority to nullify federal laws that don’t serve his personal agenda, but if Congress dares to exercise it’s responsibility of controlling the purse strings, he will willingly hold public safety grants hostage just to get his way?

Mr. President, you don’t have to love the Congress we elected, but you do have to respect their role as established under the Constitution -and Mr. Johnson, please show some integrity and stop with the threats. Sheriffs don’t take kindly to them.

OBAMA SENDS MASSIVE THREAT TO SHERIFFS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, FUND AMNESTY OR LOSE FEDERAL GRANTS!

RichardAnthony 03/25/2015News, Politics

36Share 12Tweet 0 0Reddit 1Share 1Email

The Department of Homeland Security has issued a threat to ALL Sheriffs in our country! Secretary JEH JOHNSON says unless the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS funds Obama’s ILLEGAL AMNESTY the Sheriffs will not receive the Federal grants they are counting on to protect AMERICAN citizens!



This is just totally INSANE! This is government EXTORTION at the expense of American citizens safety- all for ILLEGAL ALIENS? Unbelievable…

To set the record straight, Congress is most likely going to approve funding for everything the DHS needs with the exception of funding for the ILLEGAL AMNESTY which OBAMA shoved down the throats of AMERICA! Huge numbers of Sheriffs, law enforcement as well as citizens DO NOT support Obama’s amnesty which will ultimately end up costing us TRILLIONS of dollars and have actually taken the Kenyan to court over the matter.

But now, Sheriffs across the country are receiving threatening letters from the DHS including one sheriff from Colorado, Sheriff Justin Smith who posted this on his Facebook page:

“I received a very interesting veiled threat letter from Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security addressed to all police chiefs and sheriffs around the country.

His letter made it clear that if Congress didn’t send President Obama the DHS funding bill that he wanted (rubberstamping the president’s executive amnesty), local and state public safety agencies would not receive federal grants they were counting on because the president would veto the DHS funding bill.”

Let me get this straight – the president believes he has the authority to nullify federal laws that don’t serve his personal agenda, but if Congress dares to exercise it’s responsibility of controlling the purse strings, he will willingly hold public safety grants hostage just to get his way? That would deliberately be putting the lives of not only law enforcement officers in jeopardy…but will directly impact the physical safety of American citizens. But not that Obama gives a rats ass about American lives.

Had enough of Obama’s illegal actions yet ? Why aren’t you on the phone screaming at the top of your lungs for Congress to impeach Obama?

[vector7]

DHS Launches “Family Reunification,” Refugee Program for Central Americans

APRIL 01, 2015

To facilitate the often treacherous process of entering the United States illegally through the southern border, the Obama administration is offering free transportation from three Central American countries and a special refugee/parole program with “resettlement assistance” and permanent residency.

Under the new initiative the administration has rebranded the official name it originally assigned to the droves of illegal immigrant minors who continue sneaking into the U.S. They’re no longer known as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC), a term that evidently was offensive and not politically correct enough for the powerful open borders movement. The new arrivals will be officially known as Central American Minors (CAM) and they will be eligible for a special refugee/parole that offers a free one-way flight to the U.S. from El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras. The project is a joint venture between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department.

Specifically, the “program provides certain children in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras with a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that some children are undertaking to the United States,” according to a DHS memo obtained by JW this week. The document goes on to say that the CAM program has started accepting applications from “qualifying parents” to bring their offspring under the age of 21 from El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras. The candidates will then be granted a special refugee parole, which includes many taxpayer-funded perks and benefits. Among them is a free education, food stamps, medical care and living expenses.

During a special teleconference this week officials from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the State Department explained how CAM will work. Only “friendly” groups and individuals invited by the government were allowed to participate and the event was not open to the media. Judicial Watch attended as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with interest in the matter. Obama administration officials offered an overview of the new CAM initiative and confirmed that the U.S. has deployed staff to the region to handle the influx of applicants. A State Department official promoted CAM as a “family reunification” program that will be completely funded by American taxpayers, though the official claimed to have no idea what the cost will be.

A U.S.-based parent will initiate the application to bring his or her child in from any of the three Central American countries. To qualify they must be a permanent resident, a parolee or a beneficiary of Obama’s recent amnesty or deferred action. Many have probably lived illegally in the U.S. for years. The only out-of-pocket cost is for a DNA test to assure the child belongs to the applicant but Uncle Sam will reimburse the money if the result is positive. A U.S. official will interview the child, then a medical exam and “cultural orientation” will be conducted before the minor flies to the U.S. Once in the U.S. the illegal alien will get “resettlement assistance,” the State Department official confirmed during the teleconference.

If the applicant doesn’t qualify for the more desirable refugee status he or she can be considered for parole, a USCIS official explained in the teleconference, which was attended mostly by immigrant rights groups known for advocating on behalf of illegal aliens. Refugee status is a form of protection offered to those who are deemed of special humanitarian concern to the United States. Parole allows individuals who may be otherwise inadmissible to come to the U.S. on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. The State Department official assured that applicants need not express or document a credible fear to qualify under CAM because “we want to make sure this program is open to as many people as possible.”

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama “Hopeful” Immigration Will Drown Conservatism

February 9, 2015

The spread of vibrant social diversity is constricting the GOP’s ability to champion conservative causes, such as smaller government and independent families, President Barack Obama said in a softball media interview.

“Over the long term, I’m pretty optimistic, and the reason is because this country just becomes more and more of a hodgepodge of folks,” Obama told Vox editor Ezra Klein.

“People are getting more and more comfortable with the diversity of this country, much more sophisticated about both the cultural differences but more importantly, the basic commonality that we have,” he said in his talk, which was recorded Jan 23.

But for Obama, “commonality” is a go-to euphemism for big, intrusive, nation-wide government by progressive experts.

The nation’s governors “all have a common interest, and that is making sure that their constituents — who are also my constituents — are able to gain opportunity, work hard, prosper, feel secure,” Obama said in a Dec. 5 comment about visiting governors. “That happens best when we work together, whether we’re talking about Democrats and Republicans and independents working together, or whether we’re talking about state, federal and local officials working together,” he said.

“What our country needs from us right now is a common purpose –- a higher purpose,” he said Nov. 20 when he announced his unpopular Oval Office amnesty for eight million foreign migrants working illegally in the United States. “Our history and the facts show that immigrants are a net plus for our economy and our society,” he insisted, even though wages have remained stalled since immigration rose after 1965.

“Everything we’ve done to heal the housing market is… about restoring our common values,” he said in a Jan. 8 speech in Arizona. Those values, he said, include a big government program to reverse the damage caused by the big-government housing bubble. “I want to just tell you a quick story… when things seemed darkest, Lorraine learned about something called the Hardest Hit fund –- it’s a program that we created to help folks in states like Arizona that had been especially hard hit by the real estate crash,” he said about “common values.”

Free-market variety is contrary to a common purpose, Obama said Jan. 21. “Our media is all segmented now so that instead of just watching three stations, we got 600,” he said in an Idaho speech. “You got the [single] conservative station and the liberal stations. So everybody is only listening to what they already agree with. And then you’ve got political gerrymandering… so there are a lot of institutional forces that make it seem like we have nothing in common,” he said.

In his Vox interview, Obama predicted that immigration would overwhelm conservative causes.

If “you go to Tennessee and it turns out that you’ve got this huge Kurdish community. And you go to some little town in Iowa and you see some Hasidic Jewish community, and then you see a bunch of interracial black and white couples running around with their kids… in these little farm communities, and you’ve got Latinos in the classroom when you visit the schools there,” he said.

“So people are getting more and more comfortable with the diversity of this country, much more sophisticated about both the cultural differences but more importantly, the basic commonality that we have,” he said.

That diversity hinders conservative priorities, he said.

Those goals include support for families so they can independently govern themselves and their kids.

“The Republican party, even the most conservative, they have much less ability, I think, to express [opposition to single-sex marriage] than they did even 10 years ago,” Obama said.

Obama also used the interview to declare the free-market has failed to deliver economic opportunities and decent wages throughout society. “A lot of the [economic] distributional questions that used to be handled in the marketplace through decent wages or health care or defined benefit pension plans — those things all are eliminated…the average employee, the average worker, doesn’t feel any benefit,” said Obama.

The market’s failure, he said, requires more progressive government intervention in the economy. “So part of our job is, what can government do directly through tax policy?” he asked. “[E]ven before taxes are paid, are there ways that we can increase the bargaining power: making sure that an employee has some measurable increases in their incomes and their wealth and their security as a consequence of an economy that’s improving.”

“There’s been some interesting conversations globally around issues like inclusive capitalism and how we can make it work for everybody,” said Obama.


But Obama’s progressive deputies and allies have worked with big business groups to depress wages by flooding the labor market with immigrants since 2009. For example, his administration has provided work permits to 5.46 million migrants above the normal 1 million legal immigrants per year.

In 2013 and 2014, Obama tried to provide work permits to at least 12 million illegals, and his Oval Office amnesty would provide another 5 million work-permits to illegals.

His push for more immigration was his top legislative priority over the last two years, but was defeated by public protests.

“Together with the Affordable Care Act — two major pieces of legislation — that when we look back 50 years from now, I think we will all just be extremely proud,” Obama’s top aide, Valerie Jarrett said in August 2013. “It will be a landmark piece of legislation.”

The immigration influx has reduced the proportion of working-age Americans in the workforce since 2010. In November 2014, one in every five U.S. jobs was held by a foreign-born worker, up from one-in-six jobs in January 2010, according to federal data highlighted by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The drop in wages and rise in government dependence caused by Obama’s policy of mass immigration simultaneously gives Obama the opportunity to justify even more immigration and to portray conservative as bigots. “I know some worry immigration will change the very fabric of who we are, or take our jobs, or stick it to middle-class families at a time when they already feel like they’ve gotten the raw deal for over a decade,” he said Nov. 20.

“That’s not what these steps would do. Our history and the facts show that immigrants are a net plus for our economy and our society,” he claimed.

“I believe it’s important that all of us have this debate without impugning each other’s character,” he added in his Nov. 5 speech, slyly suggesting that his GOP critics are bigots.

He replayed the rhetorical trick in his Vox interview, saying “the Republican Party, even the most conservative, they have much less ability, I think, to express discriminatory views than they did even 10 years ago.”

“And that’s a source of optimism. It makes me hopeful,” he said.

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama Amnesty Granted 500,000 Social Security Numbers To Illegal Immigrants

April 15, 2015

The administration has granted about 541,000 Social Security numbers to illegal immigrants under President Obama’s original 2012 deportation amnesty for Dreamers, officials told Congress in a letter made public Wednesday.

That means almost all of the illegal immigrants approved for the amnesty are being granted work permits and Social Security numbers, opening the door to government benefits ranging from tax credits to driver’s licenses.

Social Security officials, in the April 10 letter to Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Ben Sasse of Nebraska, said they don’t keep track of how many illegal immigrants have been denied numbers, and defended their process for granting the ones they have doled out.

“We will not issue an SSN if an individual has insufficient or unacceptable documentation,” Social Security Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin said in the letter. “In addition, we will not issue an SSN if [Homeland Security] is unable to verify the individual’s immigration/work authorization status.”

Social Security numbers are considered one of the gatekeepers for being able to live and work in the U.S., and some experts have said granting them to illegal immigrants makes it easier for them to access rights reserved only for citizens, such as voting.

But the Obama administration has ruled that the illegal immigrants it has approved for its temporary deportation amnesty, known as “deferred action,” are here legally for as long as the program exists, and so they are entitled to work permits and Social Security numbers.

The IRS has acknowledged that getting a Social Security number entitles illegal immigrants to go back and claim refunds under the Earned Income Tax Credit for time they worked illegally — even if they didn’t file returns or pay taxes for those years.

Republican critics of the president’s immigration policy say he’s helping illegal immigrants at the expense of American workers, whose taxes pay for Social Security and other government benefits.

“This grant transfers jobs, wealth and benefits from marginalized U.S. workers directly to illegal workers,” said Stephen Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Sessions. “One of the most dramatic costs of amnesty — whether legislative or imposed through executive diktat — is the opening of our federal Trust Funds to large numbers of lower-income illegal immigrants.”

Mr. Obama’s latest amnesty, announced in November 2014, has been halted by a federal court, so no Social Security numbers have been granted under that policy.

But the first amnesty, announced in June 2012 and covering young adult illegal immigrants known as Dreamers, remains in effect, and had approved nearly 639,000 persons as of the end of 2014.

All those applying for the amnesty are required to apply for a work permit as well, and almost all are approved for that document, which they can then use to obtain a Social Security number.

About 541,000 numbers had been granted as of the end of 2014, meaning about 85 percent of all Dreamers had been given the coveted numbers. Still others could be in the pipeline, making the actual approval rate somewhat higher.

A federal appeals court earlier this month tossed a challenge to the 2012 amnesty, ruling that neither immigration agents nor Mississippi, who had both sued to stop the policy, had standing to bring a lawsuit.

That appeals court will hold an initial oral argument session Friday on the 2014 amnesty, which could grant tentative legal status, work permits and Social Security numbers to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.

[Ryan Ruck]

ICE Director’s Brazen Answer on Whether Agents Should Follow the Law, or Obama’s Immigration Directives

April 16, 2015

The director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Wednesday that she has no problem telling her agents to follow President Barack Obama’s orders when it comes to immigration, even when those orders violate the law as passed by Congress.

ICE Director Sarah Saldana attended a hearing held by a subcommittee of the House Budget Committee. In that hearing, Rep. David Young (R-Iowa) said he was worried about reports that some ICE officials aren’t sure whether to enforce the law as it’s written, or enforce the White House directive to relax deportation efforts against what they call low-priority illegal immigrants.



“If I had policies or directives that were contrary to the law, I would understand if they didn’t want to follow them. I would expect them to follow the law first,” Young said.

To that, Saldana replied, “And that’s where you and I probably have a fundamental disagreement.” (The exchange begins at the 1:25:30 mark in the video above.)

In a radio interview with Simon Conway in Iowa later that day, Young admitted he was floored by Saldana’s statement, and said he couldn’t believe her answer.

“We have a senior administration official, the director of ICE, saying that guidelines, directives, trump the law,” he said. “This is pretty serious.”

The back-and-forth began when Young asked Saldana to respond to Obama’s comment in February, when he said ICE officials needed to follow the White House’s orders to relax enforcement against immigrants it has deemed to be a low priority for deportation. “If somebody’s working for ICE, and there’s a policy and they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it,” Obama said then.



Those “consequences” have been widely interpreted to mean ICE officials could be fired for not following Obama’s new instructions on immigration.

Young asked Saldana if Obama’s comments concerned her in any way, given the implication that Obama was asking ICE to enforce his own directive, and not U.S. law.

“I’m trying to be honest with you, sir,” Saldana replied. “No.”

She then equated Obama’s directive to any normal directive that a company or congressman might send out to their staffs. “I imagine you have staff that you expect to comply with your directives and your policies,” she said. “I imagine the typical employer in the United States has employees who they expect to follow their directives, their policies.”

After telling Young that they have a “fundamental disagreement” over whether directives or the law are controlling, Young then asked if she sees Obama’s comments as a threat to ICE officials.

“A threat?” she laughed. “I am here of my own volition and will. I’m just trying to help the United States of America and our country on issues that are so divisive.”

[vector7]

Census: Record 51 million immigrants in 8 years, will account for 82% of U.S. growth

By Paul Bedard | April 22, 2015 | 6:11 pm

Legal and illegal immigrants will hit a record high of 51 million in just eight years and eventually account for an astounding 82 percent of all population growth in America, according to new U.S. Census figures.

A report from the Center for Immigration Studies that analyzed the statistics said that by 2023, one in seven U.S. residents will be an immigrant, rising to one in five by 2060 when the immigrant population totals 78 million.

The report was provided to Secrets and released Wednesday evening.

RELATED: The killer question of immigration reform

The surge in immigrant population, both legal and illegal, threatens to slam into the presidential campaign as GOP candidates move to figure out what their position is and the president tries to use executive powers to exempt some 5 million illegals from deportation.


Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker disrupted the debate this week when he said that legal immigration also needs to be reformed to make sure Americans don't suffer by losing jobs to new citizens.

But even more, the CIS report said that the surge in mostly legal immigrants will have a huge impact on the nation and taxpayers.

RELATED: Poll: No, Obama didn't have the authority to grant amnesty

"These numbers have important implications for workers, schools, infrastructure, congestion and the environment," said Steven Camarota, the center's director of research. "They also may have implications for our ability to successfully assimilate and integrate immigrants. Yet there has been almost no national debate about bringing in so many people legally each year, which is the primary factor driving these numbers."

Those numbers are likely to shake up Washington's political debate over the 12 million illegals in America, the expected 70,000 expected to pour over the border this year and the 4.4 million legal immigrants on a State Department waiting list who have relatives or jobs in the U.S.


A protest in California. AP Photo

A key senator steering the immigration debate, Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, has warned that higher numbers of immigrants will hurt the middle class. In a letter to the New York Times Saturday, he wrote, "It defies reason to argue that the record admission of new foreign workers has no negative effect on the wages of American workers, including the wages of past immigrants hoping to climb into the middle class. Why would many of the largest business groups in the United States spend millions lobbying for the admission of more foreign workers if such policies did not cut labor costs?"

RELATED: Obama is losing his greatest asset in immigration push

On Friday, key business leaders including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a group associated with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg plan to pitch for more immigration. Their schedule is below.

The numbers, as seen in the highlights below, will also raise concerns that Washington is giving the keys to the nation to new immigrants:

• The immigrant population will grow four times faster than the native born population, reaching 15.8 percent, or 57 million, of the nation's population in 2030, 17.1 percent, or 65 million, in 2040, and 18.8 percent, or 78 million, in 2060.

• Net immigration this year will be 1.24 million; green cards about 1.1 million.

• Immigrants and their descendants "will account for the overwhelming share of population growth," said the Center in projecting growth. They will account for 75.5 percent from 2010-2050 and 82 percent from 2010-2060.

• Census Bureau projects that in 2023 the nation's immigrant population, legal and illegal, will reach 14.8 percent of the total U.S. population, the highest share ever recorded.

RELATED: Expert: Obama's amnesty 'profoundly unfair' to 4 million legal immigrants, a new high
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.




Coulter: Liberals use illegals for 'cheap nannies, lawn boys, votes'

By Paul Bedard | April 14, 2015 | 1:22 pm




Ann Coulter, the queen of conservative commentary, is about to unleash a new book that slams liberals and elites in America for opening the floodgates of illegal immigration so they can have "cheap nannies and lawn boys" -- and a devoted corps of voters.

Her upcoming ¡Adios America! The Left's Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole is likely to play a role in the debate over immigration and the 2016 presidential race where the issue splits Democrats and Republicans.

While Regnery Publishing isn't shipping the book until June 1, word about it is already out and Coulter's book is climbing the Amazon ratings. She has been a New York Times best-seller 10 times.

[Ryan Ruck]

I just saw that on Drudge and am absolutely floored.

Without digging I didn't see a percentage breakdown of legal vs. illegal in that number but, I'd have to imagine the vast majority of those were from illegals.

Now, let's not kid ourselves, we all know most of them are working under the table in some form (cash or fake SSN) and on top of that double dipping into welfare programs. Imagine the strain all of them are putting on our welfare system.

But then again, I guess that's the point of Cloward-Piven...

[Ryan Ruck]

Poll: Majority of Democrats Think Illegal Immigrants Should Have Right to Vote in U.S. Elections

May 29, 2015
By Katie Pavlich

According to a new poll from Rasmussen Reports, 53 percent of Democrats believe illegal immigrants should have the right to vote in U.S. elections so long as they pay taxes. Although the number is significantly lower, 21 percent of Republicans believe the same. The majority of the country, 60 percent, believe illegal immigrants should not have the right to vote. From the survey:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that one-out-of-three Likely U.S. Voters (35%) now believes that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote if they can prove they live in this country and pay taxes. Sixty percent (60%) disagree, while five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republicans and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.

Earlier this year, secretaries of states from Kansas and Ohio sounded the alarm over President Obama's December 2014 executive action giving illegal immigrants the ability to vote in elections.

"I want to bring to your attention my concern that the President’s recent Immigration Accountability Executive Actions will make it more difficult for elections officials to determine if all voters meet the primary standard for voting – U.S. citizenship. I am not here to debate immigration policy or the President’s executive actions. However, I am here to emphatically say that we cannot follow both the federal law and the executive action and ensure the integrity of the elections process without further assistance from Congress and the Obama administration," Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said to the House Oversight Committee in February. "For an estimated four to five million non-citizens, the President’s executive actions provide access to Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses. These are the same documents that federal law requires the states to recognize as valid forms of identification for voter registration. Under federal law, anyone with a valid Social Security number or driver’s license number can register to vote, provided they attest that they are a U.S. citizen. However, there is no way for us to validate this citizenship statement, since under the executive actions previously undocumented non-citizens will have access to the same documents as U.S. citizens. The issue becomes especially complicated in states like Ohio where millions of dollars are spent on third - party voter registration drives where no election official would be present to make clear the eligibility requirements for voting."

"The problem of aliens registering to vote is a massive one, nationwide. And I have seen it firsthand in Kansas. Because there is no way of scanning a state's voter rolls and identifying which of the registered voters are aliens, determining the exact number of aliens on the voter rolls in virtually impossible. But we know that the number is significant, because specific election episodes present evident of aliens voting and because we gain some information by matching driver's license databases against voter rolls," Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said during the same hearing. "Based on the empirical evidence that I have seen as the Kansas Secretary of State, it is a certainty that the Administration's executive actions will result sin a large number of additional aliens registering to vote throughout the country, in violation of state and federal law. These are irreversible consequences, because once an alien registers to vote, it is virtually impossible to detect him and remove him from the list of registered voters."

And as a reminder:

A Cooperative Congressional Election Study released in October 2014 found, "more than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010."

You can bet Obama's executive amnesty wasn't simply about "bringing people out of the shadows." Instead, it was about bringing illegal immigrants to the polling booth to vote for Democrats.

[vector7]

DHS Offering Employers Cash If They Hire Alien College Grads Over Citizens

What is happening in Americ… Oh, yeah. The Obama administration.

Trey Sanchez
October 27, 2015
TRUTH REVOLT

Good news, recent alien college graduate! Thanks to President Obama's executive actions and an incentive program launched by the Department of Homeland Security, employers are much more likely to hire you before they would a native college grad.

It falls under the department's Optional Practical Training program, which currently gives recent alien graduates a one-year work permit and employers a cash bonus.

The new rule not only adds a generous extension, it will also offer a bigger cash payout to employers who hire them.

As the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) notes, an illegal alien who majored in any of the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields will get an additional 17 months of permitted work, expanding their initial year guarantee to over two years. DHS has also upped the incentive for U.S. employers to hire non-citizens by offering them an increase from $10,000 to at least $12,000 to hire an alien STEM graduate.

CIS' David North writes:

I searched the proposed rule that appears in today's Federal Register for references to payroll taxes (FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) and found none. I guess DHS does not want us to know about the generous tax break that both employers and aliens get from this program. I find it intellectually dishonest not to mention this tax break in a long, extremely detailed document on this subject.

All of this leads North to the most plausible conclusion: this is no "training" program as DHS designates, but "just one more foreign worker program that has nothing to do with students" and one that favors "aliens rather than citizens."

[American Patriot]

Is this real?

[vector7]

Obama Claims Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social Security, Disability

April 6, 2016 | 2:31 PM EDT

Does the president of the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of individuals who are violating federal law that he will not enforce that law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the future and that he will take action that makes them eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due to their unlawful status?

Through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, President Barack Obama is telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.

The solicitor general calls what Obama is doing "prosecutorial discretion."

He argues that under this particular type of "prosecutorial discretion," the executive can make millions of people in this country illegally eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.

At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.

"The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress's complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country," the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.

"DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as 'lawfully present' and eligible for work authorization," says the Texas brief. "And 'lawful presence' is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security."

In the administration's brief, the solicitor general admits that the president's DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.

"Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal," he says. "An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process."

Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on "deferred action" to legally work in the United States.

"Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here," says the administration's brief.

Nonetheless, the solicitor general stresses that "deferred action" does not make an illegal immigrant eligible for federal welfare.

"In general," he says, "only 'qualified' aliens are eligible to participate in federal public benefit programs, and deferred action does not make an alien 'qualified.'... Aliens with deferred action thus cannot receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, temporary aid for needy families, and many other federal benefits."

But, he says, aliens here illegally with deferred action will be eligible for "earned-benefit programs."

"A non-qualified alien is not categorically barred, however, from participating in certain federal earned-benefit programs associated with lawfully working in the United States — the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs — so long as the alien is 'lawfully present in the United States as determined by the (Secretary),'" says the solicitor general.

The "secretary" here is the secretary of Homeland Security.

"An alien with deferred action is considered 'lawfully present' for these purposes," says the solicitor general.

So, as explained to the Supreme Court by Obama's solicitor general, when DHS grants an alien here illegally "deferred action" under the president's DAPA policy, that alien is not given "lawful immigration status" and can be removed from the country "at any time." However, according to the solicitor general, that alien will be authorized to work in the United States and will be "considered 'lawfully present'" for purposes of being eligible for "the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs."

The U.S. Constitution imposes this straightforward mandate on the president: "(H)e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

When the Supreme Court agreed in January to hear U.S. v. Texas, it made a telling request. It asked the parties to argue whether Obama's DAPA policy "violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution."

The Obama administration has taken care of just one thing here: It has constructed a convoluted — and unconvincing argument — it hopes will provide the activists on the Supreme Court with a cover story to explain why this president need not faithfully execute the nation's immigration laws.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/terenc...ocial-security

[Ryan Ruck]

Well, SCOTUS did just say they can be used in drawing Congressional districts...

[American Patriot]

I claim the right to go kick his ass.

[Toad]

Obama Claims Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social Security, Disability

WT Mutha F. As if the system isn't nearly broken already. Lets just dog pile another 15-20 million on top.