web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "enforcement"

Castro once praised Obama’s tough “enforcement” on immigration

Westlake Legal Group JulianCastro Castro once praised Obama’s tough “enforcement” on immigration The Blog Julian Castro Illegal Immigration enforcement Barack Obama

If you happened to notice much of Julian Castro’s performance during the last debate you probably heard him criticizing the other candidates for being insufficiently liberal on immigration policy. (In addition to asking Joe Biden if he was losing his memory.) He’s been using this issue as his calling card ever since he declared, staking out positions so far to the left that even the other woke candidates don’t want to stand too close to him.

But it turns out it wasn’t always this way. The Free Beacon has dug up some of Castro’s golden oldies, focusing on his time as Mayor of San Antonio. Back in 2013, Castro was a big Obama supporter and was called before the House Judiciary Committee to testify on issues pertaining to border security and immigration enforcement. He was questioned by committee chair Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) and sang a very different tune than the one you’re hearing today.

“Do you think that interior enforcement should play a role to discourage future immigration by those not documented by making jobs to them unavailable? Should that be a part of that comprehensive immigration reform?” Goodlatte asked.

“That’s a great question,” Castro said. “I do believe that enforcement, both in terms of active enforcement on our borders—and under this administration there has been tremendous progress with regard to enforcement. In fact, the triggers in the 2007 proposal have just about all been met. But going forward, of course, enforcement is part of the conversation.”

“Both in terms of border security and interior security, comprehensive immigration reform gives us the opportunity to make this work better at every single juncture,” he added later.

A picture’s worth a thousand words, so here’s the video to help Julian stroll down memory lane with us.

This is fairly incredible and I can’t help but think that some of the other candidates would be hitting him on this pretty heavily if he were polling anywhere north of zero percent. As things stand today he’s just serving as a convenient tool for those who might stand a chance but don’t want to be seen as slamming Joe Biden too hard.

Still, this sort of reversal is more than just a mere flip-flop. Castro’s current platform on immigration is as far left as one can go without offering to surrender our entire country to Mexico. He’s called for decriminalizing illegal crossings, offering free healthcare and other benefits to illegal immigrants and even removing some existing sections of the border wall. When a conservative in a primary debate calls for extending border barriers, Castro is the equivalent of the Republican who demands in return that we build a moat and fill it with laser enabled sharks.

But back in 2013, he was all about no jobs for the invaders and better ways to get people locked up and then deported. Think about it for a moment. That was barely six years ago. We’re not talking about some youthful person taking positions that later evolve with more life experience. Castro was already almost forty years old at that point and was the mayor of a major city.

That only leaves us with one conclusion. Either he was being a phony back then to suck up to Barack Obama or he’s being a phony now to try to woo the furthest left wing of the party in the primary. Take your pick, but neither of these is a good look for him. Might want to pack it in and head back to Texas, Mr. Castro.

The post Castro once praised Obama’s tough “enforcement” on immigration appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group JulianCastro-300x159 Castro once praised Obama’s tough “enforcement” on immigration The Blog Julian Castro Illegal Immigration enforcement Barack Obama   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Here’s Why Trump Is Right to Enforce the Law On Immigrants and Welfare

Westlake Legal Group border-patrol-detaining-illegals-620x464 Here’s Why Trump Is Right to Enforce the Law On Immigrants and Welfare Welfare SNAP Politics npr Necessary media bias immigration Gavin Newsom Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story enforcement donald trump democrats Bill Clinton Bankruptcy 1996

Public domain image via CBP Flickr photostream

Over the past few days we’ve seen a collective freakout among the media over Trump supposedly being so cold and heartless that he’s going to make it tougher to legally immigrate if you are on welfare. That means

Multiple outlets, including NPR and The Washington Post, ran articles proclaiming insinuating how unprecedented and cruel this is.

Then you had people like California Gov. Gavin Newsom spouting this kind of nonsense. Brad Slager covered that here, along with the responses from several 2020 candidates.

I’ll recap the details of why this is happening legally, but past that, let’s just talk common sense.

A country with a vast welfare system, which we have, simply can not sustain itself by allowing the world’s poor to immigrate and collect benefits. If money weren’t finite and bankruptcy weren’t a real thing, I’d have no problem with it. My emotional response to want to help everyone we can.

But that can’t happen if you don’t screen immigrants for their propensity to take more than they give. Without that dynamic, you simply put the country on a quicker path to disaster. Handing out green cards to people who immediately go on SNAP and public housing is a recipe for creating a situation where the United States can no longer help anyone. The best intentions often lead to the worst consequences.

What Trump is doing is not a rash decision he made on a whim because he hates immigrants. He’s actually enforcing a law that goes all the way back to 1996, a law that was signed by none other than Bill Clinton.

This is the stupidity of our immigration debate. The other side not only relies on specious emotional arguments, they also rely on the idea that it’s immoral or wrong to enforce the law. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s required under the oath the President took. Every Democrat member of Congress that’s running in 2020 made the same pledge and now wants to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Don’t like the current immigration enforcement? Don’t like that the law requires immigrants to be self-sufficient? Go change the law. Making emotional pleas on Twitter and yelling Orange Man Bad is not a policy. That’s a weak minded person’s tactic.

What Trump is doing is simply following the law that preceded his administration. The fact that other administrations chose to flaunt the law is not grounds to now demand Trump do so now. The dishonesty on this topic from our media is mind-numbing.

Past that, it’s simply necessary that there be rules and stipulations placed on legal immigration into this country. To not have that will lead to the destruction of the system all together.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Here’s Why Trump Is Right to Enforce the Law On Immigrants and Welfare appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPphoto-300x153 Here’s Why Trump Is Right to Enforce the Law On Immigrants and Welfare Welfare SNAP Politics npr Necessary media bias immigration Gavin Newsom Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story enforcement donald trump democrats Bill Clinton Bankruptcy 1996   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Nancy Pelosi doesn’t see “the point” in enforcing immigration law

Westlake Legal Group ICE Video: Nancy Pelosi doesn’t see “the point” in enforcing immigration law The Blog Nancy Pelosi Immigration and Customs Enforcement illegal aliens enforcement

I’ve heard it said that the truth will set you free. Assuming that’s the case, Speaker Nancy Pelosi must be feeling particularly light and free this week. In a rather candid set of remarks captured on video, Pelosi was asked a question about the now-delayed set of ICE raids in a dozen cities around the country. Her response certainly smacks of the truth, even if she didn’t intend to say it. Talking about illegal aliens who are already loose inside the United States and who presumably haven’t committed other, more serious crimes, she said that she didn’t “see the point” in going after them. (Free Beacon)

While discussing immigration at a town hall on Monday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) asked her audience, “what’s the point?” of enforcing immigration with the United States’ bounds.

“When I saw the president was going to have these raids, it’s so appalling, it’s outside the realm of civilized human behavior, just kicking down doors and splitting up families in addition to the injustices that are happening at the border,” she said. “We have legislation to go forward to address those needs. But in terms of interior enforcement, what’s the point?”

Pelosi went on to say that she would not pursue the question further, as this was not a “political event.”

Here’s the video. Certainly doesn’t seem like she misspoke to me.

That’s the money quote for you. “But in terms of interior enforcement, what’s the point?”

If I may be so bold, the “point” is that these are the laws of the United States. And while I hate to have to point this out, she’s the Speaker of one of the two legislative bodies responsible for crafting and maintaining our laws. If there’s no point in enforcing it, why bother having the laws on the books? Or is that what she’s hinting at here?

It’s true that for a very long time now, we’ve had to focus on locating, detaining and deporting primarily just the worst of the worst in terms of illegal aliens. The ones with lengthy criminal records are clearly a higher priority than those who otherwise keep their noses clean. And the fact is that there are so many millions of illegal aliens in the interior of the country, ICE has had their hands full just trying to keep up with the criminals.

But that doesn’t mean that the rest of them aren’t eligible for arrest and deportation, particularly those with a final deportation order in place and a warrant out for their arrest. “Kicking in doors” and “splitting up families” is what happens when people break the law and are caught. It goes on every day with American citizens who violate the law and may have families. Shall we start exempting everyone with a spouse and children from all law enforcement? If so, you should have been complaining when they sent Manafort to jail.

This was a remarkable moment of honesty for the Speaker of the House, I think. When it comes to illegal immigration, this is all one big game of Red Rover Red Rover for her. If you can make it over the border and touch base, we just ignore you and let you stay. And she’s not particularly worried about stopping them before they make it over the border either, particularly if anyone is inconvenienced. Simply incredible.

The post Video: Nancy Pelosi doesn’t see “the point” in enforcing immigration law appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group ICE-300x159 Video: Nancy Pelosi doesn’t see “the point” in enforcing immigration law The Blog Nancy Pelosi Immigration and Customs Enforcement illegal aliens enforcement   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Victory? Mexico might agree to “sweeping” plan to change regional asylum laws to avoid tariff threat, says WaPo

Westlake Legal Group t-3 Victory? Mexico might agree to “sweeping” plan to change regional asylum laws to avoid tariff threat, says WaPo Trump The Blog Tariffs safe third country Mexico enforcement border

It’d be a yuuuuuge win for Trump if so, arguably the biggest of his presidency. Certainly the biggest on immigration. And of course it’d be vindication of his decision to play hardball with tariffs — which would leave Mexico in a precarious position. If this deal comes off because Trump threatened to choke them economically if they didn’t meet his demands, he’s bound to resort to the same tactic again the next time he wants something for them. If you pay the danegeld once, you’ll eventually be asked to pay it again.

Which is to say, we’re probably destined for a trade war with Mexico at some point. But maybe not right now.

I confess my ignorance up front to immigration policy wonks: WaPo never uses the words “safe third country” agreement here when describing the asylum measures being discussed, but isn’t that what they’re referring to?

Faced with Trump’s threat to impose escalating tariffs on Mexican goods beginning Monday, Mexican officials have pledged to deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to the country’s border region with Guatemala, a show of force they say will make immediate reductions in the number of Central Americans heading north toward the U.S. border.

The Mexican official and the U.S. official said the countries are negotiating a sweeping plan to overhaul asylum rules across the region, a move that would require Central Americans to seek refuge in the first foreign country they set foot upon after fleeing their homeland.

Under such a plan, the United States would swiftly deport Guatemalan asylum seekers who set foot on U.S. soil to Mexico. And the United States would send Honduran and Salvadoran asylum applicants to Guatemala, whose government held talks with acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan last week.

Jazz noted this morning that Mexico’s southern border has already been beefed up.

WaPo’s sources, one American and one Mexican official, warned that “the accord is not finalized and that President Trump might not accept it.” It’s easy to imagine them hitting a snag — although I can’t imagine why Trump would reject a deal given these terms. The administration has been leaning on Mexico to sign a “safe third country” treaty of the sort it has with Canada, which would empower the U.S. to reject anyone applying for asylum who didn’t apply in the first safe country they passed through while fleeing their home nations. That is, if you’re an immigrant seeking refuge from persecution and you travel through Canada to reach to the U.S., you’re turned away here automatically because you didn’t seek refuge in Canada first. If the U.S. had that arrangement with its southern neighbor, it could summarily reject tens of thousands of Central Americans passing through Mexico en route to our border on grounds that they should have sought asylum in Mexico instead.

Isn’t that what’s being described in the excerpt? I’m uncertain because (a) as noted, WaPo never calls this a “safe third country” agreement and (b) until very recently Mexico had been adamant that it wouldn’t sign such a treaty. That is, or was, their “red line,” reported Reuters a few days ago. If they’re suddenly the country of last resort for asylum-seekers instead of the U.S., they could soon have their own massive immigration problem.

It sounds from this new NYT story like it may be a question of numbers. The Times reports that Mexico’s foreign minister told Mike Pence at yesterday’s meeting that Mexico would increase enforcement at its own southern border, target migrant traffickers more aggressively, and “offer asylum to thousands of Central American migrants who might otherwise seek protection in the United States.” “Thousands” is good, but “thousands” isn’t everyone; there may, in other words, be a cap on how many people Mexico’s willing to grant asylum to, which would help with the crush at America’s southern border but certainly not solve it. That would also explain why Pence was heard after yesterday’s meeting saying that Mexico isn’t offering nearly enough. A “safe third country” agreement would, presumably, be enough. A more limited offer of asylum to several thousand people wouldn’t be.

So maybe there’s less here than meets the eye. Or maybe — hopefully — the Mexican government panicked overnight and decided to cave on a “safe third country” deal today. Let’s hope so, because the economic impact on Texas of tariffs taking effect next week would be u-g-l-y. As of 4:20 p.m. ET, the White House is weighing whether to delay the start of the tariffs next week so that the two sides can keep talking. Stay tuned for updates.

The post Victory? Mexico might agree to “sweeping” plan to change regional asylum laws to avoid tariff threat, says WaPo appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-3-300x153 Victory? Mexico might agree to “sweeping” plan to change regional asylum laws to avoid tariff threat, says WaPo Trump The Blog Tariffs safe third country Mexico enforcement border   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Coulter: Sure, I’d vote for Bernie Sanders if he went back to his original position about protecting the border

Westlake Legal Group c-3 Coulter: Sure, I’d vote for Bernie Sanders if he went back to his original position about protecting the border The Blog Margaret Hoover hawk firing line enforcement border blue-collar Bernie Sanders Ann Coulter

However much of a full-spectrum conservative she may have been in the past, it’s been clear for awhile that she’s now a single-issue voter:

Here she is with Margaret Hoover affirming that fact in the starkest way:

She’s not joking, but one way to dismiss the seriousness of her point is to shrug and say that Bernie’s not going back to his “strong borders” views of 10 years ago under any circumstances and Coulter knows it. She’s specifically offering a what-if which she and everyone else understands won’t come to pass, on the order of “I’ll vote for Obama once he becomes a Republican.” Even Bernie doesn’t have enough progressive goodwill stockpiled to survive a Democratic primary in 2019 if he shifted towards border hawkishness. This is a party, after all, that treats racial and ethnic identity as no less important than class identity. Sanders arguing that we need to keep poor Latinos out to protect the wages of poor Americans just won’t hack it. If nothing else, it reeks of nationalism — and since when do ambitious socialists draw the limits of the cause at national borders?

Here’s the thing about Bernie, though, which may keep Coulter interested in him for the next year or so: He’s clearly uncomfortable with the extent of the left’s craving for open borders. He’s willing to bow to them by adopting a more permissive attitude towards illegal immigration but he makes noise regularly to signal his misgivings. Ten days ago he warned lefties that fully open borders would attract poor people to the U.S. from all over the world, which is sort of the point to advocates of the idea. Bernie won’t go there, though. We can only take so many, he insisted, a terrifying reminder that the country’s most prominent supporter of Medicare for All is more serious about the limits of national resources than his own base is. He signaled his skepticism of open borders again at that Fox News town hall a few nights ago:

“We have a problem at the border, a serious problem … We need the proper legal processes at the border so that these issues can be adjudicated to determine whether or not people or should be entitled to asylum,” Sanders said April 15.

When asked where the migrants could be kept prior to their asylum hearings, Sanders responded by saying, “What about building proper facilities for them right now? That can be done right on the border.”

The government needs more immigration judges to quickly process asylum claims by migrants, Sanders said. “You’re coming into the country? Are you really fleeing violence or is it another reason?’ You need to have many, many more judges to expedite the process,” Sanders stated.

The Ocasio-Cortez left doesn’t want people turned away just because their claims of persecution back home are bogus. They want them admitted essentially as a matter of right, because they’re seeking a better life. Bernie’s sterner answer at the town hall was noticed by border hawk Mickey Kaus, who tweeted about it approvingly and was then retweeted by Coulter, further evidence that she’s intrigued by his maneuvers on immigration. It would be some ideological journey for her to go from stalwart Mitt Romney fan to Chris Christie enthusiast to “In Trump We Trust” author to ridealong on Bernie Sanders’s socialist revolution in the span of less than a decade.

Tell me this. Among the various arguments made by righties against illegal immigration — cultural, economic, political — one that turns up in almost every critique of comprehensive immigration reform is electoral, namely, the fear that millions of illegals will vote Democratic once they’re granted citizenship. “They come from statist systems. Give them a ballot in the U.S. and they’ll opt for statism here too, especially with Democrats promising them the sun, moon, and stars in benefits to win their votes. We’ll end up with socialism.” Now here’s Coulter claiming that the alleged nightmare scenario, socialism, is actually … just fine as a trade-off so long as it means keeping low-skilled Mexicans out. What’s left of the electoral argument against amnesty?

The post Coulter: Sure, I’d vote for Bernie Sanders if he went back to his original position about protecting the border appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-3-300x153 Coulter: Sure, I’d vote for Bernie Sanders if he went back to his original position about protecting the border The Blog Margaret Hoover hawk firing line enforcement border blue-collar Bernie Sanders Ann Coulter   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com