"The Obama administration and federal government generally appear more determined to facilitate and encourage illegal immigration using American taxpayer dollars than to seriously address the crisis. In early May, President Barack Hussein Obama announced his proposed 2017 budget, which included $1.3 billion specifically for resettling unaccompanied alien children in the U.S."
The Center for Immigration Studies found that illegal alien households “receive an average of $5,692 in federal welfare benefits every year,” which amounts to over $1,200 more in welfare benefits than native-born Americans annually receive on average. In Virginia, illegal aliens are suing their former landlords after being evicted from a mobile-home park due to their undocumented status, according to The Washington Post.
DOJ Wants to Hide the Names of Illegal Aliens Granted Amnesty
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. (Photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters/Newscom)
The Justice Department is resisting a judge’s order to provide ethics training for its lawyers and is objecting to turning over to the court the names of illegal aliens who were granted what amounts to administrative amnesty (“deferrals”) in stark violation of an injunction issued by the court.
On May 19, Judge Andrew Hanen of the of the Southern District of Texas issued an order imposing sanctions on the Justice Department and its lawyers for unethical conduct, which included repeatedly lying to him in court.
U.S. v. Texas is the immigration lawsuit filed by 26 states against the Obama administration over its plan to provide deferrals, work permits, and other government benefits to almost 5 million illegal aliens. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction in February 2015 preventing implementation of the plan.
His decision was upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Hanen issued his sanction order because of the misbehavior of Justice Department lawyers when the case was before him. He severely rebuked the DOJ for claiming that the president’s plan was not being implemented prior to his issuing his injunction order when the government knew that it was being implemented—to the tune of over 100,000 aliens. When he found out, he ordered the government to reverse its behavior and void these deferrals.
Amongst the sanctions Hanen ordered on May 19 was yearly ethics training for five years for every DOJ lawyer stationed in Washington who appear in any of the courts of the states who filed the lawsuit. He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to provide him (under seal) with a list of all of the aliens who had been given benefits under the amnesty plan in violation of his injunction.
However, on May 31, the Justice Department filed a motion with Hanen asking him to stay (or suspend) his sanctions order while DOJ appeals his decision to the 5th Circuit. The Justice Department claims in its brief that with regards to the required ethics training, Hanen’s determination that the DOJ’s lawyers engaged in “intentional misrepresentation” was reached “without proper procedural protections” and that there was not “sufficient” evidence of the misrepresentations.
Given the extensive evidence that Hanen cited in his order of the misrepresentations made by the government lawyers, as well as the extensive opportunity he gave the DOJ to present its side in the briefs it filed with the court, the claim that the DOJ was somehow unfairly judged or unable to present its defense is extremely dubious.
The DOJ also claims that the “sanctions imposed exceed the court’s authority.” Given the severity of the violations of the code of professional conduct that govern lawyers, including government lawyers, this is another problematic claim by the department.
Given that the judge could have imposed even more severe sanctions, such as dismissing the defensive pleadings filed by the government (which would have caused them to lose the case) or making the government pay the attorneys’ fees of the states, the sanctions imposed seem almost mild.
Of course, they are highly embarrassing given what they reflect about the behavior of DOJ lawyers. But according to the Justice Department, Hanen is interfering “with the attorney general’s executive authority” in imposing ethics training and the other requirements that Hanen laid out, such as filing a comprehensive plan within 60 days “to prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again.”
Apparently, that is too much to ask of the attorney general.
The strangest claim made by the Justice Department is that Hanen’s order to produce a state-by-state list of all of the illegal aliens unlawfully granted deferrals would “breach the confidence of these individuals (and of others who submit information to USCIS) in the privacy of such records.”
An affidavit filed by León Rodriguez, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at the Department of Homeland Security, claims this would violate the internal privacy policy of DHS even though he admits the federal Privacy Act “does not apply to non-U.S. persons.”
Not only does the Privacy Act not apply to “non-U.S. persons” (Illegal aliens), but federal law (8 U.S.C. §1373) specifically requires the federal government to provide “citizenship or immigration status” information on any individual in response “to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency.” And this requirement applies “notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law.”
Thus, states are statutorily entitled to this information and the DOJ’s claim that it is confidential has no basis in the law whatsoever. Of course, this very inconvenient federal provision is not mentioned in the Justice Department’s brief.
This action by the Justice Department makes it clear it intends to appeal Hanen’s sanctions order. Whether he will grant the requested stay is unknown, but he had ordered a hearing on the DOJ’s request for June 7.
So far in this litigation, the Justice Department and the Obama administration have had a steadily losing hand. We will have to see if that continues.
On May 19, Judge Andrew Hanen of the of the Southern District of Texas issued an order imposing sanctions on the Justice Department and its lawyers for unethical conduct, which included repeatedly lying to him in court.
U.S. v. Texas is the immigration lawsuit filed by 26 states against the Obama administration over its plan to provide deferrals, work permits, and other government benefits to almost 5 million illegal aliens. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction in February 2015 preventing implementation of the plan.
His decision was upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Hanen issued his sanction order because of the misbehavior of Justice Department lawyers when the case was before him. He severely rebuked the DOJ for claiming that the president’s plan was not being implemented prior to his issuing his injunction order when the government knew that it was being implemented—to the tune of over 100,000 aliens. When he found out, he ordered the government to reverse its behavior and void these deferrals.
Amongst the sanctions Hanen ordered on May 19 was yearly ethics training for five years for every DOJ lawyer stationed in Washington who appear in any of the courts of the states who filed the lawsuit. He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to provide him (under seal) with a list of all of the aliens who had been given benefits under the amnesty plan in violation of his injunction.
However, on May 31, the Justice Department filed a motion with Hanen asking him to stay (or suspend) his sanctions order while DOJ appeals his decision to the 5th Circuit. The Justice Department claims in its brief that with regards to the required ethics training, Hanen’s determination that the DOJ’s lawyers engaged in “intentional misrepresentation” was reached “without proper procedural protections” and that there was not “sufficient” evidence of the misrepresentations.
Given the extensive evidence that Hanen cited in his order of the misrepresentations made by the government lawyers, as well as the extensive opportunity he gave the DOJ to present its side in the briefs it filed with the court, the claim that the DOJ was somehow unfairly judged or unable to present its defense is extremely dubious.
The DOJ also claims that the “sanctions imposed exceed the court’s authority.” Given the severity of the violations of the code of professional conduct that govern lawyers, including government lawyers, this is another problematic claim by the department.
Given that the judge could have imposed even more severe sanctions, such as dismissing the defensive pleadings filed by the government (which would have caused them to lose the case) or making the government pay the attorneys’ fees of the states, the sanctions imposed seem almost mild.
Of course, they are highly embarrassing given what they reflect about the behavior of DOJ lawyers. But according to the Justice Department, Hanen is interfering “with the attorney general’s executive authority” in imposing ethics training and the other requirements that Hanen laid out, such as filing a comprehensive plan within 60 days “to prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again.”
Apparently, that is too much to ask of the attorney general.
The strangest claim made by the Justice Department is that Hanen’s order to produce a state-by-state list of all of the illegal aliens unlawfully granted deferrals would “breach the confidence of these individuals (and of others who submit information to USCIS) in the privacy of such records.”
An affidavit filed by León Rodriguez, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at the Department of Homeland Security, claims this would violate the internal privacy policy of DHS even though he admits the federal Privacy Act “does not apply to non-U.S. persons.”
Not only does the Privacy Act not apply to “non-U.S. persons” (Illegal aliens), but federal law (8 U.S.C. §1373) specifically requires the federal government to provide “citizenship or immigration status” information on any individual in response “to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency.” And this requirement applies “notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law.”
Thus, states are statutorily entitled to this information and the DOJ’s claim that it is confidential has no basis in the law whatsoever. Of course, this very inconvenient federal provision is not mentioned in the Justice Department’s brief.
This action by the Justice Department makes it clear it intends to appeal Hanen’s sanctions order. Whether he will grant the requested stay is unknown, but he had ordered a hearing on the DOJ’s request for June 7.
So far in this litigation, the Justice Department and the Obama administration have had a steadily losing hand. We will have to see if that continues.
AMERICAN THINKER:
OBAMA'S SABOTAGE OF AMERICA'S BORDERS
Under the Obama administration, illegal alien families caught at the border are quickly released after being given a summons to appear in immigration court.
MEXICAN: AMERICA’S MURDERING UNREGISTERED DEMS
HALF THE MURDERS IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA ARE NOW BY MEX GANGS
CA HAS THE LARGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE PRISON SYSTEM IN THE NATION, HALF THE INMATES ARE MEXICANS
THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 2,000 CALIFORNIANS MURDERED BY MEXICANS THAT FLED BACK OVER THE BORDER TO AVOID PROSECUTION.
MORE THAN 90% OF THE MURDERS IN MEX-OCCUPIED CITY OF LOS ANGELES ARE MEXICANS.
OF THE TOP 200 MOST WANTED (MURDER) CRIMINALS IN MEX-OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES, 186 ARE MEXICANS.
SEE POLICE IMAGES OF THESE WANTED MEXICANS HERE:
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS:
The rich get much richer, cronies stay out of prison and illegals get millions of jobs and billions in welfare…..
Poverty has become more concentrated under Obama
By Nancy Hanover
2 May 2016
Under the Obama administration, more Americans
have found themselves consigned to economic ghettos, living in neighborhoods where more than 40 percent subsist below the poverty level.
Millions more now live in “high poverty” districts of 20-40 percent poverty, according to recently released report by the Brookings Institution.
have found themselves consigned to economic ghettos, living in neighborhoods where more than 40 percent subsist below the poverty level.
Millions more now live in “high poverty” districts of 20-40 percent poverty, according to recently released report by the Brookings Institution.
WILL MEXICO ELECT ALL FUTURE
PRESIDENTS? THEY ARE NOT GOING TO
SURRENDER THEIR TRILLION DOLLAR
WELFARE STATE, HEROIN MARKETS OR
BILLIONS IN LOOTING WITHOUT A WAR!
LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILLARIA
ENDORSED BY NARCOMEX. HER VOW OF
WIDER OPEN BORERS IS GOOD FOR
LOOTING MEXICANS AND THEIR DRUG
CARTELS!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/05/former-president-fox-of-narcomex.html
PRESIDENTS? THEY ARE NOT GOING TO
SURRENDER THEIR TRILLION DOLLAR
WELFARE STATE, HEROIN MARKETS OR
BILLIONS IN LOOTING WITHOUT A WAR!
LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILLARIA
ENDORSED BY NARCOMEX. HER VOW OF
WIDER OPEN BORERS IS GOOD FOR
LOOTING MEXICANS AND THEIR DRUG
CARTELS!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/05/former-president-fox-of-narcomex.html
BRETBART VIDEO OF THE INVADING MEXICANS
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/04/bretbart-video-mexicos-invasion-of.html
IMAGES OF AMERICA AFTER THE FINAL SURRENDER TO NARCOMEX AND THE LA RAZA DRUG CARTELS
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/04/bretbart-video-mexicos-invasion-of.html
IMAGES OF AMERICA AFTER THE FINAL SURRENDER TO NARCOMEX AND THE LA RAZA DRUG CARTELS
HEROIN!
MEXICO’S GIFT FOR A PRICE TO AMERICA.
THE NARCOMEX CARTELS HAUL BACK FROM $40 TO $60 BILLION FROM DRUG SALES.
OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERS HAVE BEEN ONLY TOO PLEASE TO LAUNDER THE CARTELS DIRTY MONEY. HOW MUCH WAS SPEND INVESTING IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS OR PHONY SPEECH FEES TO OBAMA, OR THE CLINTONS?
FORMER NARCOMEX PRESIDENT FOX HAS ENDORSED LA
RAZA HILLARIA…. HE SAYS AMERICA SHOULD
LEGALIZE DRUGS. GUESS HE’S FILLED HIS SWISS
BANK ACCOUNTS WITH DIRTY CARTEL MONEY!
Obama expanded his power domestically far more than any other president in memory. His executive action on immigration is a good example of legislating from the bureaucracy by implementing policies directly contrary to existing law and anything Congress would be willing to do.The server scandal is a metaphor for the old Hillary — opaque, controlling, paranoid, ruthless and power-hungry. It's proof that she hasn't changed.
Now we have Candidate Clinton promising even more aggressive executive immigration amnesty than Obama. Not only has Hillary vowed to defend Obama's executive immigration actions, she said "if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further." She added, "That is just the beginning …"
ROBERT RECTOR: Importing poverty…. WE
ALSO IMPORT ALL THEIR CRIMINALS
Obama Administration Looks to Cement Ethnic Divides With Language Mandate
The administration warns that “not recognizing children’s cultures and languages as assets” may be hurting them with school work. (Photo: Pete Souza/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
The Obama administration seems to live in a parallel reality, oblivious to the racial animus that has become the hallmark of late-stage Obama and to the ethnic strife that wreaks havoc on the rest of the world. Inside its own Platonic cave, the thinking is: Over half the world is polyglot, so why not us?
Its latest policy statement, issued jointly late last week by the departments of Education and Health and Human Services, advises states to instruct early childhood students in home languages different from English, and to help them retain separate cultural attachments.
The administration warns that “not recognizing children’s cultures and languages as assets” may be hurting them with school work. “Over half the world’s population is estimated to be bilingual or multilingual,” the statement lectures almost plaintively.
The answer is to celebrate and preserve the differences of dual language learners, or children who speak a different language at home.
States must move with alacrity because these children will soon make up a “sizable proportion of the workforce” and their linguistic and cultural assets will be needed in an “evolving global economy.”
“The growing diversity of our nation’s children requires that we shift the status quo,” says the statement, in order to “build a future workforce that is rich in diversity, heritage, cultural tradition, and language.”
Tolerance and respect are not sufficient—early childhood programs must “embrace and celebrate their diversity.”
If this last bit of compulsive affirmation finally perks up your ears, it should. So should hearing for the umpteenth time about this administration’s zest for shifting the status quo.
In a Heritage Foundation issue brief published this week, I argue that policy statements of this sort raise generalized concerns because they may be deemed coercive and intrusive into areas of primary state and local jurisdiction.
The administration has no authority under the federal statutes governing education, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the implementing regulations, to require bilingual education or retention of “cultural assets.”
But the problems with this policy approach are much more fundamental. Speaking a second, third, or more foreign languages is indubitably a bonus for an individual, but it is far less clear that societal bilingualism or multilingualism helps cohesion or economic success.
>>>To Read Mike Gonzalez’s Full Issue Brief:
“New White House Policy Promotes Ethnic Separation—Congress Should Reject It“
The administration disregards a whole field of academic research that finds a high correlation between ethnic stratification and conflict.
One of the papers, by Alberto Alesina and others at Harvard, considered the gold standard study in the field of ethnic fractionalization, finds that countries with high linguistic and ethnic divisions have many societal dysfunctions.
Well before Harvard, the ancients (or if you’re a believer, a Higher Authority) drew a distinction between individual wisdom (which Proverbs 8:11 rightly says is “better than rubies”) and fracturing society linguistically, which was the punishment for the hubristic planners of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7—“let us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech”).
If Harvard studies or Revealed Truth don’t convince you, here’s what liberals have said on the matter.
More than a century ago, John Stuart Mill warned that:
that holds a nation together?”
A few questions later, Schlesinger answered himself: “If separatist tendencies go on unchecked, the result can only be the fragmentation, resegregation, and tribalization of American life.”
This is why American leaders from the time of the founding, in recognition that it was even then a land with a high number of immigrants, have pursued an approach that is actually more inclusive than what the administration proposes today: It encouraged the foreign born to feel as though they were natives. They knew that a polity needs a single language.
America has seen higher rates of foreign born and of globalization, and its leaders had hitherto stuck to their desire for E Pluribus Unum.
This administration, always seeking in haste to
“shift the status quo,” is only too happy to
overlook the carnage that divisions between so
many Hutus and Tutsis, Serbs and Croats and
Pashtuns and Hazaras have created.
Even in industrialized allied nations like Belgium and Spain, or our northern neighbor Canada—which are high gross domestic product per capita societies with concomitant high levels of education, health, and other advantages—official bilingualism has pitted region against region, neighbor against neighbor.
Perhaps Congress can take a look at this new Tower of Babel and ask some questions.
Its latest policy statement, issued jointly late last week by the departments of Education and Health and Human Services, advises states to instruct early childhood students in home languages different from English, and to help them retain separate cultural attachments.
The administration warns that “not recognizing children’s cultures and languages as assets” may be hurting them with school work. “Over half the world’s population is estimated to be bilingual or multilingual,” the statement lectures almost plaintively.
The answer is to celebrate and preserve the differences of dual language learners, or children who speak a different language at home.
The policy statement calls for a range of practices, from creating curricula and educational systems that “support children’s home language development,” to urging states to hire more teachers who “speak the language and/or share the cultural background of children who are DLLs [dual language learners] in the community.”
“The growing diversity of our nation’s children requires that we shift the status quo,” says the statement, in order to “build a future workforce that is rich in diversity, heritage, cultural tradition, and language.”
Tolerance and respect are not sufficient—early childhood programs must “embrace and celebrate their diversity.”
If this last bit of compulsive affirmation finally perks up your ears, it should. So should hearing for the umpteenth time about this administration’s zest for shifting the status quo.
In a Heritage Foundation issue brief published this week, I argue that policy statements of this sort raise generalized concerns because they may be deemed coercive and intrusive into areas of primary state and local jurisdiction.
The administration has no authority under the federal statutes governing education, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the implementing regulations, to require bilingual education or retention of “cultural assets.”
But the problems with this policy approach are much more fundamental. Speaking a second, third, or more foreign languages is indubitably a bonus for an individual, but it is far less clear that societal bilingualism or multilingualism helps cohesion or economic success.
>>>To Read Mike Gonzalez’s Full Issue Brief:
“New White House Policy Promotes Ethnic Separation—Congress Should Reject It“
The administration disregards a whole field of academic research that finds a high correlation between ethnic stratification and conflict.
One of the papers, by Alberto Alesina and others at Harvard, considered the gold standard study in the field of ethnic fractionalization, finds that countries with high linguistic and ethnic divisions have many societal dysfunctions.
Well before Harvard, the ancients (or if you’re a believer, a Higher Authority) drew a distinction between individual wisdom (which Proverbs 8:11 rightly says is “better than rubies”) and fracturing society linguistically, which was the punishment for the hubristic planners of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7—“let us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech”).
If Harvard studies or Revealed Truth don’t convince you, here’s what liberals have said on the matter.
More than a century ago, John Stuart Mill warned that:
Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country.And closer still to our time, the historian and eminent public intellectual Arthur Schlesinger, also a liberal, asked in 1991, “In the century darkly ahead, civilization faces a critical question: What is it
that holds a nation together?”
A few questions later, Schlesinger answered himself: “If separatist tendencies go on unchecked, the result can only be the fragmentation, resegregation, and tribalization of American life.”
This is why American leaders from the time of the founding, in recognition that it was even then a land with a high number of immigrants, have pursued an approach that is actually more inclusive than what the administration proposes today: It encouraged the foreign born to feel as though they were natives. They knew that a polity needs a single language.
America has seen higher rates of foreign born and of globalization, and its leaders had hitherto stuck to their desire for E Pluribus Unum.
This administration, always seeking in haste to
“shift the status quo,” is only too happy to
overlook the carnage that divisions between so
many Hutus and Tutsis, Serbs and Croats and
Pashtuns and Hazaras have created.
Even in industrialized allied nations like Belgium and Spain, or our northern neighbor Canada—which are high gross domestic product per capita societies with concomitant high levels of education, health, and other advantages—official bilingualism has pitted region against region, neighbor against neighbor.
Perhaps Congress can take a look at this new Tower of Babel and ask some questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment