Thursday, July 31st, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Immigration
One of the most egregious aspects of Barack Obama’s presidency – if not the most egregious aspect, is his contempt for our borders and sovereignty. Among all of Obama’s illegal and imperial acts as president – and there have been many – none of them have affected laws more fundamental to preserving our existence as a sovereign nation like his administrative edicts granting amnesty and inviting in illegal immigrants from around the world.
Yet, instead of using the power of the purse or even simply expressing outrage against Obama’s open borders policies, Republican leadership has remained indifferent for the past few years. Concurrently, they joined with Democrats and publicly agreed with the premise that passing amnesty is one of the most pressing priorities of our time. In fact, if not for those dreaded outside conservative groups and the fervent opposition of the GOP base, these same Republicans would have easily passed the Gang of 8 comprehensive amnesty bill. Even after they were forced to oppose that bill, they merely expressed opposition to its comprehensive nature while echoing the core values and dyslexic priorities expressed in this odious piece of legislation.
At the time, we warned that fervent bipartisan support for amnesty would not only cripple our welfare system, it would perpetuate a vicious cycle incentivizing new waves of illegal immigrants. We were ridiculed, mocked, and marginalized by the broader GOP party elite.
Fast-forward a year later, and everything our side predicted came to fruition dramatically. The forces behind open borders in both parties were completely repudiated in spectacular fashion in front of the entire nation. As we predicted, once the other side of the debate would be properly articulated, the American people would side with us. Indeed immigration has become the worst issue for President Obama, even factoring in a languishing job market and Obamacare.
Republicans had the opportunity to unite and stand firmly against amnesty while using the power of the purse to end the lawlessness once and for all. Instead, they completely adopted Obama’s messaging about this being a humanitarian crisis exclusively related to unaccompanied kids. They adopted his message that this was a crisis requiring immediate funding and changing of statutes related to “Bush era” laws. They focused on everything except for the original culprit of the border surge, and indeed, they ultimately failed to address their own concerns with the statutes and made current law worse.
Why were they so recalcitrant to deal with Obama’s illegal amnesty, even as Obama promised to grant new waves of amnesty? Why were they willing to grant Obama new money before he agrees to swear off amnesty?
It’s real simple. The same forces behind their ill-advised and politically tone-deaf pursuit of amnesty last year are still running the show. All of the leadership lobbyists, staffers, pollsters, and donors are still inexorably against true enforcement measures and desire more amnesty. Hence, they were forced to walk a tight-rope in which they pretended to care about the border, but ultimately refused to act against DACA in any consequential way. They needed to buy off conservative votes, but deep down they are still aligned with the open borders crowd. Not surprisingly, Becky Tallent, the co-author of the McCain amnesty bill, was allegedly involved in drafting this flawed bill. Talk about the fox guarding the hen-house.
Sadly, the vacuum of leadership that actually shares our values has created much acrimony among conservatives in the House. Stymied by efforts to advance conservative proposals, individual members are confronted with tortuous decisions – whether to buck their own party and become marginalized or whether to eat the excrement sandwich and violate their principles. Some members who choose the latter approach try to convince themselves that they are sincerely making progress moving leadership to their position.
Ultimately, what many members and beltway conservatives fail to see is that this is not a family disagreement over strategy. The core movers and shakers within the party are completely out of touch with their party base, and frankly, the majority of the country, on this issue. They have no intention to fight open borders because they are controlled by those very elements who have engendered this problem in the first place.
Amazingly, two of the members of Boehner’s “border task force” were part of the House Gang of 8 last year and are passionate supporters of amnesty. Most notably, Boehner omitted DACA from his lawsuit against Obama’s lawlessness.
Some of these same members who are feigning outrage and expressing the desire to “do something” about the border were nowhere to be seen when the issue blew up last year. Many of them were on the wrong side of the issue. Now they refuse to use their first point of leverage to stop Obama’s amnesty and are dismayed that conservatives were not fooled by their distractions and shiny objects. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Wednesday, July 30th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Immigration
The bill proposed by House Republicans (H.R. 5230), not only fails to address the root causes of the border surge or hold President Obama accountable, it actually weakens current law. While distracting from Obama’s DACA and promises of amnesty with statutory minutia over the 2008 anti-trafficking law, the House bill actually makes matters worse and voids out the entire purpose of modifying that law:
1) No Mention of DACA Amnesty: This is not only the cause of the border surge, it is an ongoing threat as Obama openly promises to grant amnesty for 5-6 million more people. The glaring omission and the fear to even mention it will not go unnoticed by Obama.
2) Only Addresses UACs: Republicans have completely bought into the messaging from the White House that this crisis is all about unaccompanied children. Yet, UACs only account for 20% of the recent surge in border crossings. This bill does nothing to address the catch and release policies of the other 80%.
3) Does Not End Catch and Release: Although the bill repeals Section 235(a) of the William Wilberforce Trafficking law and places UACs from non-contiguous countries into judicial proceedings, nowhere does it prevent HHS from releasing them into custody of relatives (often illegal immigrants) during the myriad of delays in proceedings subject to the discretion of the judge. So even though they are selling this bill as a means of expedited removal, as it requires adjudication within 7 days and a decision within 72 hours thereafter, that is only relevant to those who bother to attend or show up to subsequent hearings. Without ending catch and release, almost none of the UACs will ever appear before a court.
4) Does Not Close Asylum Loophole: Even those few who appear before the court and are ruled inadmissible to the U.S. can have a chance to apply for asylum with a claim of “credible fear.” [page 21] As we already know, there is an unlimited supply of pro bono immigration attorneys who will coach them to claim persecution. A whopping 92% of credible fear applicants have been approved in recent years. Once their claim is accepted, they will be sent back to HHS and likely released into custody of relatives. This bill actually insults our intelligence and addresses the asylum loophole in Section 106….only for drug smugglers! Everyone else is explicitly granted the opportunity to seek asylum.
5) Makes UAC Crisis Worse with De Facto Amnesty: Section 103 [page 27] of this bill mimics the provision in Senator Cornyn’s bill, which actually makes it easier for recent arrivals to thwart deportation than under current law. It allows all those who received a Notice to Appear since January 2013 to get a second bite at the apple. Their notice will be expunged and they will have another chance to apply for admission, even if they ignored previous orders to appear. The immigration judge will then have sole discretion to grant amnesty as long as “the granting of such motion would not be manifestly unjust.” [Section 103(c)(3)]
6) Actually liberalizes law on Mexican UACs: Changing the 2008 Wilberforce law and equalizing treatment of UACs from Mexico with those from Central America is a double-edged sword. While making the laws governing those from Central America stricter (although other provisions will void that out, as noted above), this bill will liberalize the laws governing Mexican UACs. Under current law, they can be returned to Mexico immediately [8 U.S.C. §1232(a)(2)(A)]. The House bill will place them into the same judicial process as other UACs, granting them the opportunity to be released and/or to apply for asylum.
7) Keeps HHS Throughout Entire Process: One of the purposes of repealing the Wilberforce law governing UACs from Central America was so that we can prevent HHS from helping integrate them into the country. This bill keeps them in the custody of HHS throughout the entire judicial process and never mandates “detention” in a legal sense.
8) No Mission for National Guard: While the bill appropriates funds for any usage of the National Guard at or near the border, it never explicitly calls for activating the military, nor does it mandate how Obama uses the soldiers. Barring specific directions, Obama can and will use them for his purposes.
9) Transferring UACs to Military Bases: Instead of barring the use of military bases to house the UACs, Section 302 of the bill merely expresses “ the sense of Congress” that the administration notify them before doing so. Ironically, with regards to DACA, the House was too scared to even express their sense that the president should no longer grant administrative amnesties.
10) No Fence: Any discussion of dealing with the border crisis without mandating completion of the Secure Fence Act – the only proven method – is worthless.
Wednesday, July 30th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Debt
In a classic Washingtonian political maneuver, both parties are prepared to introduce a massive new Veterans Affairs health care entitlement and force members to vote up or down on the entire package before they hustle off to their awaiting flights home for the August recess. While containing one or two good proposals, the Sanders-Miller conference agreement will create a new entitlement, possibly as big as Medicare Part D, without addressing the fundamental problems with the VA that are short-changing our veterans. Most of the funds will be designated as “emergency spending,” which will exempt it from the requirement for offsets.
Much like most crisis-driven pieces of legislation, this bill sounds good on the surface. It would authorize $5 billion for hiring of additional staff and almost $2 billion for construction of 27 new facilities. The bill would also spend $10 billion granting veterans the option to seek care at private facilities, for those who are 40 miles away from a VA system or for those who have waited in line without getting an appointment for 30 days. $5 billion of the spending would be offset with other cuts to the VA while the rest of the tab would be exempt as emergency spending.
Here are some of the core concerns with the bill:
Read more at Breitbart:
Tuesday, July 29th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Press
For Immediate Release:
July 29, 2014
Madison Project Urges Senators to Oppose Highway Bill, Adopt Mike Lee’s Innovation
Fort Worth, Texas – The Madison Project PAC issued the following statement ahead of Tuesday’s vote on the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 (H.R. 5021) in the U.S. Senate:
“With so much waste, inefficiency, and debt in the federal transportation system, the time is ripe for the Senate to go big on transportation policy,” said Daniel Horowitz, policy director of the Madison Project. “The current highway bill before the Senate invests even more money into the sinkhole of federal transportation policy and uses the most absurd accounting gimmicks to offset the $10.8 billion tab. The endless debt and constant threat of increased federal taxes exposes the absurdity of running something like transportation of 50 states from the nation’s capital.
“The only way to improve our infrastructure, avoid tax increases on a federal level, prevent the need for earmarks, and avoid wasteful and inefficient projects is to devolve the gas tax and the related responsibility for surface transportation to the 50 states, except for those projects that are national in scope and therefore germane to federal oversight and funding. Senator Mike Lee’s Transportation Empowerment Act (S. 1702) will do just that, and will come to the floor as an amendment to the highway bill.
“It’s time we free the states and the citizens from the paralysis, waste, and fraud that is associated with the lobbyist-driven federal transportation policy. Like other federal policies, it has encumbered growth and development for far too long. We urge all senators to oppose the underlying bill and adopt Sen. Lee’s amendment to empower the states with authority over transportation and abolish the gasoline tax.”
The Madison Project supports and raises money for conservative candidates that have demonstrated a commitment to full-spectrum conservatism. The Madison Project website can be found at http://madisonproject.com/
# # #
Monday, July 28th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Immigration
Not only is this president akin to an arsonist who comes onto the scene of the border crisis as the firefighter, he is actually standing there with a blow torch promising to set our sovereignty ablaze like never before. While we are suffering the consequences of Obama’s open immigration invitation to the world, he is threatening to grant further amnesty to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.
To be clear, administrative amnesty is a flagrant violation of federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1225), which requires ICE to place aliens who are not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” to the United States into removal proceedings. Moreover, any effort to grant illegals work permits is incontrovertibly in violation of Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act:
(a) Making employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful
(1) In general
It is unlawful for a person or other entity—
(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section) with respect to such employment, or
(i) to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section…
Yet, amazingly, despite this unprecedented imperial activity, Speaker John Boehner omitted immigration as an example of Obama violating separation of powers in his op-ed defending his lawsuit against the President.
One would expect Republicans to use their first leverage point to put an immediate end to this lawlessness, especially while Obama is openly promising to double down on administrative amnesty. Yet, not only are Republicans refusing to use current appropriations to rein in this imperialism, they plan to give him new funding without first demanding that he swear off further amnesties.
Folks, this is not just about Republicans as a powerless minority party. With control of the House, they can easily leverage all funding against administrative amnesty. They certainly have the power to block new funding. Yet they are silent.
Does anyone really think this behavior will change when Republican take back the Senate?
Thursday, July 24th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy
Democrats have a penchant for implementing bad policies and then responding to the deleterious consequences by throwing money at the problem. The Senate supplemental appropriations bill, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), allocates an additional $2.7 billion to deal with the border crisis, yet declines to deal with the flawed policies that have engendered this new wave of illegal immigration in the first place. Ironically, in order to grease the skids of the bill, Democrats have attached an extraneous rider sending $225 million to help pay for Israel’s Iron Dome System, which is yet another example of throwing money at a policy problem they helped create.
What Israel needs most now is the ability to defeat the Hamas terrorists and preserve its sovereignty – unencumbered by drive-by micromanagement from the White House. No country can survive economically if its entire population has to huddle in bomb shelters waiting for the next rocket to drop.
Unfortunately, not only has President Obama declined to side with our best ally, he has demanded an immediate cessation of Israel’s self-defense operation even as the rockets continue to fall. This week, Obama has taken his dyslexic moral relativism to a new level by rewarding Hamas for their rocket attacks near Israel’s only international airport by banning all flights to Tel Aviv. There is nothing more inimical to a county’s economic vitality than shutting down its airport, and it appears that Hamas has now achieved their desired result. They are declaring victory in light of Obama and other world leaders issuing bans on travel to Israel.
So after telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to suspend his effort to destroy Hamas rocket launchers, Obama now has the impertinence to complain about the lack of security at Ben Gurion airport. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), rightfully asked, “If the FAA’s decision was based on airline safety, why was Israel singled out, when flights are still permitted into Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen?”
With whom does this president’s sympathies lie? As Cruz noted, “The facts suggest that President Obama has just used a federal regulatory agency to launch an economic boycott on Israel, in order to try to force our ally to comply with his foreign-policy demands.”
Sadly, instead of holding their party leader accountable for abrogating the long-standing relationship with Israel and endangering their economic and national security, Democrats are distracting attention with legislative logrolling. They are tossing in extra funding for Israel’s defense in order to sweeten the pot for a misguided border bill, while simultaneously evincing a pro-Israel image. Democrats, who are always sensitive to polling, must be keenly aware of the fact that Americans strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense and self-determination.
But what good is it to send more money to Israel only to use those funds to undercut their security and instigate a de facto economic boycott? Much like the crisis on our southern border, sending money to alleviate a problem while doubling down on the policies that cause or exacerbate the crisis is counterintuitive.
It’s unfortunate that Democrats lack the moxie to confront the leader of their party over his egregious actions against Israel – a sphere of policy for which they claim bipartisan support. For all the complaints about conservatives and the Tea Party, everyone should appreciate the fact that the party faithful are willing to hold their leadership accountable for violating its principles. To the extent that Democrat rank-and-file really oppose terrorism and support Israel, they should do the same. Adding funding for Israel’s security to an inappropriate legislative vehicle will not conceal their indifference toward Obama’s dangerous foreign policy.
Ultimately, it is quite ironic that after advocating open borders back home, Obama has now moved onto the next agenda item – ensuring that Israel lacks secure borders as well. Maybe the Democrats are onto something by juxtaposing these two disparate policies after all.
Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Elections
Members of an opposing political party are usually not focused on the internal affairs of their opponents, but Senator Chuck Schumer is riveted by the GOP “civil war.” Throughout the past few years, he has offered almost daily analysis and comments on the internal strife within the party, expressing his strong desire for the party elites to emerge victorious. He has finally poured out his heart in a New York Times op-ed, calling for an end to closed primaries, primarily because of the Republican civil war.
Is Chuck Schumer suddenly planning to become a Republican? Why is he so fascinated with Republican politics? Shouldn’t he be more concerned with Democrat internal affairs?
Upon further scrutiny of Schumer’s intent, his obsession with Republican politics makes a lot of sense. While it’s important to pick the players on your own team, it is even more effective to pick your opponents. In this op-ed Schumer clearly reveals that there is only one type of Republican he truly fears, and if he had the power to change the laws governing elections, he would make sure that Republicans only elect politicians who will serve as straw-men opposition to the liberal agenda.
Schumer is advocating for open primaries so that, in his own words, Democrats and Independents can prevent “extreme” candidates from winning the Republican primary:
“But primaries poison the health of that system and warp its natural balance, because the vast majority of Americans don’t typically vote in primaries. Instead, it is the “third of the third” most to the right or most to the left who come out to vote — the 10 percent at each of the two extremes of the political spectrum. Making things worse, in most states, laws prohibit independents — who are not registered with either party and who make up a growing proportion of the electorate — from voting in primaries at all.
The phenomenon of primaries’ pulling people to the extremes seems more prevalent in the Republican Party, where centrists and moderates are increasingly rare, as a result of a combination of factors since the 1970s — the shift of Southern states toward Republican control, the mobilization of evangelical voters around social issues, anti-tax movements in California and elsewhere, and the rise of conservative talk radio and other news media.
The inherent problem with Schumer’s logic is that if closed primaries are responsible for extreme candidates pervading the political process, what does he have to fear? After all, if they only represent 10% of the electorate, they will easily be defeated and repudiated. Moreover, is Schumer suddenly concerned about the electoral viability and political future of the Republican Party? As the lead partisan Democrat, wouldn’t he celebrate the self-destruction of his opposition?
All of these questions are obviously self-explanatory. Chuck Schumer would like to go back to the days when Republicans were exclusively controlled by the likes of Bob Michael and Bob Dole. He wants Republicans to continue bringing a Lamar Alexander or a Thad Cochran to a Chuck Schumer fight. He doesn’t want Republicans to actually fight his liberal agenda with equal and opposing force. That is why he wants to implement a system to preempt the election of conservatives like Ted Cruz or Chris McDaniel.
Implicit in this op-ed is the sense that Schumer doesn’t fear Republicans like Lamar Alexander, Thad Cochran, Mitch McConnell, and Pat Roberts. He knows that they stand for nothing, appeal to nobody, and will ultimately never pursue a conservative agenda in a meaningful way. They will continue to perpetuate their own power, and even grant vacuous gestures to their conservative voters when it is convenient, but they will never fundamentally undermine the growth of government. And Chuck Schumer would like to keep it that way.
Monday, July 21st, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Economy
In many respects, Dodd-Frank is the forgotten leviathan of the Obama administration – one that is dragging down the economy just as much as Obamacare, even though it hasn’t received the same scrutiny or provoked as much outrage.
The 2300-page bill, which turns four years old today, contains hundreds of new mandates and rules that distort the credit, financial, and housing markets, impose onerous and time-consuming burdens on small businesses, and limit consumer choice. The regulations are so complex that many of them have not been formally drafted, causing thousands of businesses to halt their expansions and new hiring until the government provides them with some clarity. It is nothing short of a wholesale takeover of the financial services and banking industries, much like Obamacare is to the healthcare industry. As House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) recently said, Dodd-Frank is “more appropriate for a Soviet-style command-and-control economy than a system of free enterprise.”
There are a number of serious problems with this bill. Here are some of the worst aspects:
- Too Big to Fail: – Title I of the bill created a new permanent bailout regime, the Financial Stability Oversight Council. This institution would vitiate the bankruptcy process and allow the government to take over any entity that it deems vital to the rest of the economy. In other words, it consummates “too big to fail” as a permanent policy, the very policy this bill was supposed to fix.
- Volcker Rule – The Volcker rule ostensibly prohibits regular banks from investing their own money by engaging in bond trading. It also prohibits banks from holding more than a 3% stake in private equity funds. Just this part of the bill is 300 pages long! It will take hundreds of new Keynesian jobs just to enforce, interpret, and comply with the rule.
- CFPB – The bill created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFBP), which will limit the choices of consumers in financial markets, making it harder and more expensive to obtain credit. This unaccountable agency will operate autonomously within the Federal Reserve and will not be subjected to congressional appropriations or oversight. It is essentially the “death panel” of the financial sector, with control over bank accounts, mortgages, and student loans.
- Derivatives Trades – Some key restrictions on derivatives trades only apply to banks with assets above $10 billion. This has created a perverse incentive for banks to limit their expansion, and by extension, creation of jobs, for the purpose of staying below the limit.
- Debit Card Fees – The new limitations on bank charges for processing debit card submissions from retailers has caused an increase in user fees for customers, most notably, for opening checking accounts. It has also prompted banks to eliminate debit card rewards programs.
- Freddie/Fannie – Dodd-Frank did nothing to privatize or even reform these two behemoths that are responsible for the housing crisis and the recession.
It’s no wonder such an odious law was conceived by two of the most corrupt members of Congress – Barney Frank and Chris Dodd – who were largely responsible for the housing crisis and ensuing freezing of the credit market. Sadly, three Republicans joined with Democrats to give opponents of free enterprise 60 votes in the Senate to pass the bill. And with energy to repeal even Obamacare is gradually waning, it’s becoming harder to rally Republicans against this un-American law.
While we are all focused on the more imminent threats of open borders, Obamacare, and our weak national defense, it’s important to remember that Dodd-Frank, rather than preventing a financial crisis, will serve as the foundation for the next financial meltdown. Any Republican candidate for president must unequivocally pursue full repeal of Dodd-Frank.
Monday, July 21st, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Immigration
We are a country that has successfully fought two world wars and can deploy our military assets anywhere in the world within hours. We are the country that landed human beings on the moon. Yet, the political class would have you believe that we are helpless in stopping an endless flow of illegal immigrants across our border. They would have you believe that we are the ones on defense; that we must accommodate the needs of these people and their robust legal and political support structure lest we face reprisal.
It’s time we turn the tables and reassert control over our own borders, sovereignty, and destiny. This is not a natural disaster; it has been encouraged and facilitated by powerful forces within our country and the countries immediately to the south of us.
Instead of only treating the symptoms of the problem with legislative minutia concerning a human trafficking law–a law that has a mere perfunctory relevance to the border surge–Republicans must lay out a vision to stop the cause of the problem–the lawlessness. The time has come to reverse the climate that has encouraged and incentivized this behavior. Here are the actions that can easily work in changing the climate:
Read more at Breitbart:
Wednesday, July 16th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Immigration
Republicans in Washington have been stymied by the President’s impertinence towards the rule of law and disrespect for the legislative authority of Congress. The only tool that Congress can utilize against an imperial presidency is the power of the purse, yet Republicans have been reluctant to engage in such brinkmanship. But now the President has given Republicans their best point of leverage yet – he is asking for new funding to clean up the immigration mess created by his lawless amnesties. It’s time Republicans embrace the leverage instead of squandering it.
In June 2011, the Obama administration sent a memo (“Morton Memos”) to DHS law enforcement ostensibly suspending deportations against those illegals who would qualify for the Dream Act – a law the never passed Congress. This policy, which was eventually formalized into the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, was fully institutionalized on June 15, 2012.
It’s bad enough for a president to violate even minor laws and serve as his own ad hoc law-making body. But it is downright dangerous for a president to shred our immigration laws, which are so fundamental to preserving our sovereignty and protecting our national security. Obama was clearly in violation of federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1225) which requires ICE to place aliens who are not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” to the United States into removal proceedings. In its place, he unilaterally created his own law, yet most Republicans huffed and puffed but did not fight back with the power of the purse.
Fast-forward two years and we are now witnessing the failure of such lawlessness in spectacular fashion. Hundreds of thousands of people from Central America are chomping at the bit to take advantage of the new open borders policy while the going is good. Now Obama is forced to ask Congress for more money to “clean up” his mess. It goes without saying that the first demand of all Republicans should be the suspension of DACA and the repeal of Obama other lawless acts – the very impetus for this request for funding.
Yet many Republicans seem content to ignore DACA and focus on shiny objects, some of which actually help Obama with his deceptive messaging. Senator John Cornyn has introduced a bill that includes vague border security language similar to the Senate Gang of 8 bill. He also proposed changes to the much-hyped 2008 human trafficking law (the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA)), which supposedly requires ICE to hand-over unaccompanied child aliens from non-contiguous countries to HHS instead of deporting them.
Republicans must learn that this law is a complete shiny object.
Not only is the 2008 law not the impetus for causing this wave of illegal immigration, for the most part it is not an impediment to sending them back. The administration has failed to provide ample data of those already apprehended, but as the Center for Immigration Studies notes, it is unclear how many of the illegals fit the description of an “Unaccompanied Alien Child.” A large percentage of them are adults, many of the children are accompanied by an adult, and even among those who are unaccompanied many of them have relatives here.
Even among those who are legitimately designated as UACs, only those who have been “severely” trafficked are eligible for the protected status that precludes expedited removal. As the CIS report notes, there is scant evidence that a large amount of the recent arrivals have been severely trafficked as much as they were consensually smuggled. Finally, even if the two aforementioned factors apply, the 2008 law exempts “exceptional circumstances.” It’s hard to imagine waves of tens of thousands of illegals fitting into the spiriting of the original bill and not qualifying as an extraordinary circumstance. Moreover, as the Heritage Foundation observed, Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) explicitly grants the administration the authority to deport anyone who has not been paroled or in the country for two years.
Hence, the 2008 trafficking law is nothing but a distraction tossed out by the White House. Any attempt by Republicans to make this the main issue will only serve to buttress Obama’s attempt to distract from his man-made crisis. They should demand a repeal of DACA and the dozens of other lawless acts, as laid out by Senator Sessions. Not only has Obama made no attempt to restore the laws he’s already abrogated, he has promised to grant administrative amnesty to 5-6 million more illegal aliens.
Now is not the time to focus on shiny objects and distractions. Now is the time to let Obama know that the days of lawlessness are over.