Newt Gingrich’s statements at a CNN foreign policy debate that seemed to support the establishment of an amnesty program for illegal immigrants has drawn his opponents to the issue like sharks to chum. While the roster of GOP presidential hopefuls has taken advantage of Gingrich’s proposals, none has been more tenacious in the attack than erstwhile media magnet, Michele Bachmann.
At an unexpected stop in South Florida Thursday, the one-time darling of the Tea Party continued her assault on Newt Gingrich on the issue of how to address the problem of illegal immigration.
Calling Gingrich an “influence peddler,” Bachmann touted her outsider status compared to that of career politician, Newt Gingrich.
Bachmann used the word “amnesty” when speaking of the plan proffered by the former Speaker of the House.
For his part, Gingrich rejects this characterization of his position, saying, instead, that he believes that if an illegal immigrant has worked for years in this country, raised a family, paid taxes, and kept his nose clean, then that person should be allowed to remain in the United States as a permanent resident.
In what may become the second arm of a federal pincer strategy aimed at judicially nullifying state laws, leading Democrats in Congress have proposed a new bill that may void the various state statutes enacted recently to combat the growth of the illegal alien population.
As has been thoroughly covered in The New American, the Obama administration has filed suit in several federal courts challenging the constitutionality of laws passed by state legislatures that have drawn the attention of the media for their more controversial provisions.
To date, the complaints filed by the Department of Justice (typically with the Department of Homeland Security listed as a co-plaintiff) have named as defendants the Attorneys General of the states whose laws they are seeking to set aside.
This latest effort by the federal government to redraw the lines of power laid out by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution would authorize the Department of Justice to file suit against state and local governments suspected of using racial profiling to carry out the new anti-illegal immigration laws passed by legislators.
Now that Newt Gingrich has become the latest in a series of Republican frontrunners, he is getting the kinds of scrutiny and attacks that have done in other frontrunners. One of the issues that have aroused concern among conservative Republicans is that of amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially after Gingrich said that it would not be "humane" to deport someone who has been living and working here for years.
Let's go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.
There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively.
The usually sober and thoughtful Wall Street Journal, on issues other than immigration, outdoes Newt Gingrich's claim that it would not be "humane" to deport illegal immigrants who have been living here a long time. A Wall Street Journal editorial says that it would be "psychotic" to do so.
On November 18, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced its intent to investigate the effect of various state anti-illegal immigration statutes on the civil rights of alleged targets of those laws. A unanimous vote taken at the eight-member group’s most recent business meeting was the spark that ignited the flames of interest in this issue. The primary focus of the investigation will be the effect of the relevant laws recently enacted in South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia.
More documents and statements have emerged showing that evidence was withheld from the jury that convicted Border Patrol Agent Jesus “Chito” Diaz, Jr., prompting strong criticism and a growing uproar in Congress.
On November 22, the non-profit Law Enforcement Officers Advocate Council (LEOAC) released official documents related to the case that were obtained during discovery process — when the defense is allowed to review the evidence against the defendant. The judge in the case had issued an order prohibiting defense attorneys from releasing the information, but LEOAC and its legal counsel obtained the documents well before the order was given. They do not believe the restriction applies to third parties.
Among the trove of documents sent to The New American and posted online were interviews with trainee agents who claimed to have witnessed the alleged excessive use of force. Also included were interviews with agents who were in the area but did not see agent Diaz engaging in any improper behavior. A complaint from the Mexican Consulate was made available as well.
According to experts, the picture that emerges from a review of the documents is troubling. And more than a few prominent individuals have expressed deep concerns about a possible miscarriage of justice.
In the next phase of its litigious campaign to perpetuate the constitutionally unsupportable position that the federal government has exclusive authority in all matters of immigration policy, the Obama administration has sued the state of Utah over its recently enacted anti-immigration law.
The complaint filed on behalf the Department of Justice was accompanied by a statement from Attorney General Eric Holder:
"A patchwork of immigration laws is not the answer and will only create further problems in our immigration system. While we appreciate cooperation from states, which remains important, it is clearly unconstitutional for a state to set its own immigration policy."
Co-claimant, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, was quoted as saying that laws such as the one passed in Utah will encourage discrimination and will ultimately subvert “the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve."
In defense of his state and the recent statute lawfully enacted by the duly elected representatives of his state, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff lamented the decision of the Department of Justice to file the suit, as he insists he has made every good faith effort to work with the Obama administration.
Almost a year ago exactly, yet another drunk-driving illegal alien killed another American citizen. This time, it was Sarasota, Fla., and the vehicular killer will spend 13 years behind bars. It’s a small price to pay for 26-year-old Daniel Garcia, the blotto border jumper who will be 12 years younger when he emerges from jail than Pamila Yoder, the 51-year-old wife and mother he killed without a moment’s thought of what might happen if he got behind the wheel.
More than 100,000 Britons have eagerly signed an e-petition on the government’s website that says immigration to the sceptr’d isle must stop before the population reaches 70 million. And those 100,000, London's Daily Mail reported, signed the petition in less than a week.
The U.S. government is demanding almost $7,000 from the family of jailed Border Patrol agent Jesus “Chito” Diaz, who was prosecuted in what critics called an outrageous miscarriage of justice aimed at placating Mexican officials. But advocates for the family are still fighting back.
Diaz was accused of improperly lifting the handcuffs of an illegal alien caught smuggling drugs across the border, and then lying about it to investigators. The Mexican government filed an official complaint almost immediately.
After being cleared by two investigations, the Obama administration decided to prosecute Diaz anyway. Following a mistrial, he was convicted and sentenced to two years in federal prison and a fine. Of course, he also lost his job, leaving his wife and six children in a tough situation.
Now, making matters worse, the U.S. government is demanding immediate payment of at least $6,870 it claims Diaz owes. In a letter received recently from the Department of Justice obtained by The New American, the Diaz family was urged to pay up now or face the consequences — plus interest and fees.
In what is becoming a crucial battle in the war being waged by an ever-expanding federal authority against the sovereignty of the states, Alabama has been instructed to heed the voice of the power on the Potomac. On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the Attorney General of Alabama, Luther Strange, instructing him that despite the position taken in his earlier correspondence to the department, the DOJ has authority to conduct investigations into possible violations of the civil rights of immigrants.
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, the author of the DOJ missive, was responding to a letter from Strange penned earlier in the week. In that letter, Strange demanded that the federal department inform him as to the authority granted to it to require schools in Alabama to report demographic enrollment data to the DOJ.