Thursday, October 6, 2022

U.S. Appeals Court Calls Illegal Aliens ‘Illegal Aliens’ - JOE BIDEN CALLS THEM UNREGISTERED DEMOCRAT VOTERS

George Soros, the Obamas, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and many other wealthy, elite, no-borders, one-world Marxist climate zealots have an iron grip on the Democrat Party from bottom to top. Are the elites deliberately choosing weak people so as to control them from behind the curtain? We know they have done that with Biden, Kamala, and Fetterman. Is this their new modus operandi; choose the weak who will bow to the strong because the weak are more palatable to voters than the strong? M.B. MATHEWS

U.S. Appeals Court Calls Illegal Aliens ‘Illegal Aliens’

By CNSNews.com Staff |

(Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

In a case reviewing the legality of the “Dreamers” program that President Barack Obama created to let some illegal aliens stay in the United States, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit repeatedly referred to illegal aliens as “illegal aliens.”

The opinion, written by Judge Priscilla Richman, did not refer to them, for example, as the New York Times did in its story about the court’s decision, as “young immigrants,” “immigrants,” and “young undocumented immigrants.”

The case, State of Texas vs. USA, which was brought by eight states against the Department of Homeland Security and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, challenged the policy issued by the Obama Administration in 2012 that allowed illegal aliens who had come to the United States as minors to stay in the United States.

To qualify for Obama’s effective amnesty the illegal alien had to have come to the U.S. before he or she was sixteen, lived in the United States for at least five years, be in school or have a high school degree or an honorable discharge from the armed forces, and not have been convicted of a felony or a significant misdemeanor.

The district court that initially reviewed this case concluded that Obama’s policy violated the Administrative Procedures Act, but temporarily stayed the application of the law to illegal aliens currently benefiting from DACA.

“In ruling on competing motions for summary judgement, the district court held that the DACA Memorandum violates procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA),” said the appeals court.

“The district court vacated the DACA Memorandum and remanded to DHS for further consideration but temporarily stayed that vacatur as it applies to current DACA recipients,” said the appeals court.

“We affirm the district court’s judgment in part, but remand to the district court rather than DHS in light of a final rule promulgated by DHS in August 2022,” said the appeals court.

That new final rule issued by Biden’s DHS updated Obama’s DACA policy into a federal regulation.

The appeals court then summarized the district court’s decision on DACA.

“The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the States,” the appeals court said. “It concluded that DACA violated the procedural and substantive requirements of the APA. The court held that DACA was procedurally deficient because it failed to undergo notice and comment. DACA was not a general policy statement exempt from notice and comment because it involved ‘significant rights and obligations’ and imposed ‘fixed criteria.’

“The district court further held,” said the appeals court, “that DACA was substantially unlawful because in violated the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] and other immigration statutes.

“The district court concluded that DACA was ‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction’ and ‘short of statutory right’… because “Congress’s clear articulation of laws for removal, lawful presence, and work authorization illustrates a manifest intent to reserve for itself the authority to determine the framework of our nation’s immigration system.”

“On summary judgement,” said the appeals court, “the district court held that DACA violates the APA’s procedural and substantive requirements.”

The appeals court then concluded that Obama’s DACA policy did in fact violate the APA.

“DACA created a detailed, streamlined process for granting enormously significant, predefined benefits to over 800,000 people,” said the appeals court. “This constitutes a substantive rule. Because DACA did not undergo notice and comment, it violates the procedural requirements of the APA.”

“Congress determined which aliens can receive these benefits, and it did not include DACA recipients among them,” said the appeals court. “We agree with the district court’s reasoning and its conclusions that the DACA Memorandum contravenes comprehensive statutory schemes for removal, allocation of lawful presence, and allocation of work authorization.”

“There is no ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power that DHS claims,” said the court.

“DACA ‘is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to statute,’” said the appeals court. “DACA violates the substantive requirements of the APA.”

Despite this, the appeals court sent the case back to the district court for further consideration. “The legal question that DACA presents are serious, both to the parties and to the public,” said the appeals court. “In our view, the defendants have not shown that there is a likelihood that they will succeed on the merits. But we are mindful that, in the similar DAPA case, the Supreme Court was equally divided over our judgement.”

“The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part,” said the appeals court. “The case is REMANDED to the district court, rather than DHS. The motion for a partial stay is GRANTED pending a further order of this court or the Supreme Court.”

In the course of making its argument, the appeals court repeatedly used the terms “illegal alien” and “illegal aliens.”

For example, it said: “The DACA Memorandum provides that an illegal alien qualifies for relief from removal and specified benefits if that person…came to the United States before the age of sixteen…”

It also said: “The States make clear in their filings and briefing that once the DACA program has ended, former DACA recipients should be removed on the same basis as any other similarly situated illegal alien.”

It also said: “The record does not indicate precisely what portion of all costs for illegal aliens is spent on DACA recipients, but no one disputes that some are.”

It further said: “It identifies expenditures in providing emergency medical services, social services and public education for illegal aliens.”

On Oct. 5, the New York Times published a news story about the appeals court decision that was headlined: “Appeals Court Says DACA Is Illegal but Keeps Program Alive for Now.”

In this story, the Times referred to the foreign nationals allowed to stay in the United States under the Obama Administration’s DACA policy as “young immigrants,” “immigrants,” and “young undocumented immigrants.”

Unlike the appeals court, it did not use the term “illegal alien.”

“The ruling affirmed a lower court decision that deemed a program protecting about 600,000 young immigrants from deportation to be illegal but allowed current recipients to renew their status,” said a subhead on the Times’ story as published online.

“A federal appeals court panel ruled on Wednesday that a program that protects nearly 600,000 young immigrants from deportation is illegal but allowed those already enrolled to renew their status — in essence keeping the status of the program unchanged but its future uncertain,” said the first paragraph of the Times’ story.

“Immigration advocates said the ruling signaled that the only chance for DACA to survive was for Congress to pass a law to protect young immigrants, something it has been unable to do for more than two decades,” the Times’ story went on to say.

“Former President Barack Obama created DACA through executive action in 2012 after years of inaction in Congress to provide permanent protection to immigrants who were brought to the country as children, a group referred to as ‘Dreamers,’” reported the Times.

“The Biden administration has repeatedly called on lawmakers to pass legislation enshrining protections for young undocumented immigrants,” said the Times’ story.

Fed Economists: Inflation Eroding Most Americans’ Wage Gains

'The current time period is unparalleled in terms of the challenge employed workers face,' says Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Getty Images
Reuters • October 4, 2022 5:00 pm
SHARE
By Michael S. Derby
NEW YORK (Reuters)—Americans' wages are losing ground to inflation at a steep rate, a report on Tuesday from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas said, a finding that offers some support for the central bank's super-charged campaign to lower price pressures.
"Despite the stronger wage growth due to the tightness of the labor market, a majority of workers are finding their wages falling even further behind inflation," economists for the Dallas Fed wrote. A majority of workers' wages, once adjusted for inflation, "have failed to keep up with inflation in the past year. For these workers, the median decline in real wages is a little more than 8.5%."
The report acknowledged over the last 25 years there have been other periods of lost ground on wages relative to inflation, but added "the current time period is unparalleled in terms of the challenge employed workers face."
The paper said the average median decline in real wages over the last quarter century is 6.5%, with real wage declines typically ranging between 5.7% and 6.8%, highlighting the pain of the current period.
The report arrives as the U.S. central bank is pressing a historically aggressive campaign to raise rates. Since March, the Fed has lifted its overnight target rate range from near zero levels to the current 3% to 3.25% range, trying to lower the highest inflation rates in forty years.
According to central bank forecasts and the comments of officials, the Fed's efforts are far from finished. At its September policy meeting officials penciled in a year-ending funds rate of 4.4% and a 4.6% rate for next year.
The Fed has justified this as a necessary rebalancing of the economy. It has acknowledged that its effort to bring inflation down from the annualized 6.2% increase seen in August back to the 2% target will take time and will drive up unemployment.
On Monday, New York Fed president John Williams said that while the jobless rate will likely rise from 3.7% to around 4.5% next year, "history teaches us that price stability is essential to achieving maximum employment over the longer term."
Williams said high inflation hurts Americans unequally, adding "those who can least afford the essentials—like food, gas, and housing—suffer the most."
The Fed has faced criticism from some that its bid to lower inflation will cause too many job losses, and Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself has warned of likely economic pain.
On Tuesday in New York, San Francisco Fed leader Mary Daly said she believes there is room to bring better balance in the job market without sending that part of the economy into outright decline.
Daly acknowledged that wage earners were losing ground against surging inflation and noted that her bank is collecting evidence pointing to a moderation in wage gains.
She said she is seeing "a very different pace" for wage gains now, as some of the rapid churn seen during and after the most acute phase of the coronavirus pandemic has passed. She said big wage increases are giving way to much smaller gains or attempts to improve work conditions outside of pay.
The catch for the Fed is that with underlying levels of inflation having grown worse, wage earners could lose even more ground on their pay before prices are brought under control.
(Reporting by Michael S. Derby; Editing by David Gregorio)

After donating heavily to Barack Obama’s Senate and presidential races and pouring money into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Soros spent even more to defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election. He told the World Economic Forum that Trump’s America First agenda ran counter to the globalist project. While criticizing big money’s influence in politics, he injected $81 million (including $70 million of his own) through the Democracy PAC. Using the pandemic as an excuse, his funding vehicles sought to increase vote-by-mail, expanding opportunities for vote tampering and harvesting.

Watch: Migrants Arrive on Buses to VP Kamala Harris’s D.C. House from Texas

Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times/STEFANI REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

JOHN BINDER

6 Oct 20220

1:56

Another busload of border crossers and illegal aliens, sent from Texas by Gov. Greg Abbott (R), arrived at Vice President Kamala Harris’s residence in Washington, DC, on Thursday.

As part of Abbott’s operation to bus border crossers and illegal aliens out of Texas to sanctuary cities, he sent another migrant bus to Harris’s residence, the Naval Observatory, this week.

Most of those arriving, according to reports, arrived at the United States-Mexico border from Venezuela and Ecuador in the hopes of being released into the U.S. interior as part of President Joe Biden’s expansive Catch and Release network.

The latest bus of nearly 40 border crossers and illegal aliens comes about a month after Abbott sent an initial migrant bus to Harris’s D.C. residence. The vice president did not greet the new arrivals.

In addition, the migrant buses continuing to arrive in D.C. from Texas and Arizona are against the backdrop of the Democrat-controlled D.C. City Council advancing a plan that will give voting rights to newly arrived foreign nationals — including illegal aliens and temporary visa holders.

From February 2021 to August 2022, the Biden administration has released at least 1.35 million border crossers and illegal aliens into American communities, working directly with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that help bus and fly arrivals across the U.S. interior, often free of charge.

Another roughly one million illegal aliens have successfully crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, since Biden took office, undetected by Border Patrol.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.