Friday, February 27, 2015

Victims of Released Criminal Immigrants to Testify Against Obama Policies

Victims of Released Criminal Immigrants to Testify Against Obama Policies 
 by JOEL GEHRKE 

 Family members of people who were murdered by illegal immigrants after those immigrants had previously been detained and released pursuant to President Obama’s policies will testify before House lawmakers Wednesday morning. The testimony is intended to illustrate a pattern of the Department of Homeland Security releasing criminal immigrants rather than deporting them, according to a Republican congressman who said that DHS had released 36,000 convicted criminal illegal immigrants since 2013. “Of those 36,000, already now 1,000 of them have already been convicted of new crimes,” says the lawmaker. “These are people who have gone through the court system, even. And yet, rather than them get repatriated, they’re released, and now there are new victims because of the recklessness of the policy.”  With that in mind, a House Oversight and Government Reform panel will hear from Jamiel Shaw, whose son was murdered by a gang member in the country illegally, and Michael Ronnebeck, whose nephew Grant was allegedly murdered by a man who faced deportation but was released by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement. “We want Grant’s death to be a force for change and reform in the immigration policies of this great nation,” Michael Ronnebeck says in prepared testimony obtained by National Review, after detailing how ICE released the alleged murderer twice: once, after after he pled guilty to a burglary, and a second time when he was waiting for a deportation hearing. “I am asking you, our elected scholars, lawyers, and community leaders, to make these changes; to rise above your political differences, to set aside your personal interests, and to use your resources to make sensible immigration reform a reality in the coming months, so that tragedies like this might not ever occur again,” Ronnebeck says in the prepared remarks. Republicans hope the testimony will help win the public-relations fight over the Department of Homeland Security funding bill, which Senate Democrats have filibustered because it contains language barring the implementation of Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414354/victims-released-criminal-immigrants-testify-against-obama-policies-joel-gehrke

The President and ‘Violent Extremism’


2015-02-23T142829Z_4_LYNXMPEB1M0LG_RTROPTP_3_USA-SECURITY
Regarding Islamic violence — the greatest world evil since Nazism and Communism — the president of the United States, his administration, and the left generally live in a make-believe world, a world of denial. In their world, Islam is today, and has always been, a religion of peace; Muslims are threatened by Islamophobia; Christians are wiped out by “violent extremists;” European cartoonists incite radical Muslims to murder them; fundamentalists of all religions are equally problematic; the hundreds of millions of Muslims who support violent Islamists have nothing to do with Islam, but the Inquisition was conducted by normative Christians; and slavery was defended in the name of Christ, but no mention is made of the far more ubiquitous (and ongoing) slavery in the name of Allah or of the fact that the movement to abolish slavery in the West was due entirely to Christians.
Nothing better reflects those Orwellian beliefs than President Barack Obama’s speech last week at the conclusion of the absurdly named Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.
President Obama: “With the brutal murders in Chapel Hill of three young Muslim Americans, many Muslim Americans are worried and afraid.”
The president made this comment — at the beginning of his address — despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that the three young Muslims were killed because they were Muslim. They were murdered by a man angry at them about an ongoing parking place dispute. It was the height of irresponsibility to cite these terrible murders as an example of religious hate.
Obama: “Around the world, and here in the United States, inexcusable acts of violence have been committed against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths — which is, of course, a betrayal of all our faiths. It’s not unique to one group, or to one geography, or one period of time.”
What is he talking about? In America are Christians killing Jews? Jews killing Muslims? Buddhists killing Mormons? Mormons killing Hindus? “Not unique to one group?” Other than Muslims murdering Christians, Jews, Yazidis and other Muslims, who in the world today is murdering in the name of their religion?
Obama: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”
Normative Islam demands theocracy. Does the president not know that? Does he not know that 91 percent of Iraqis and 89 percent of Palestinians believe that Sharia should be the law of the country? That 29 percent of Egyptians believe that suicide bombings are justified? That the majority of Muslim-majority countries have blasphemy and/or apostasy laws? And if he did, would he say they are all perverting Islam?
Obama: “The terrorists … no more represent Islam than any madman who kills innocents in the name of God represents Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism.”
More make-believe moral equivalence. What Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Hindus are “killing innocents in the name of God?”
And what religion other than Islam has scriptures that exhort its followers to slay unbelievers?
Obama: “No religion is responsible for terrorism; people are responsible for violence and terrorism.”
I wish he would say that about criminal gun-use. “No guns are responsible for violence; people are responsible for violence.”
Obama: “We also need to lift up the voices of those who know the hypocrisy of groups like ISIS firsthand, including former extremists. Their words speak to us today. … ‘This isn’t what we came for, to kill other Muslims.'”
Whoever made this comment obviously thought that he was joining Islamic State in order to murder, rape, burn and behead non-Muslims. And this is a voice the president wants to lift up?
Obama: “If we’re going to prevent people from being susceptible to the false promises of extremism … countries have to truly invest in the education and skills and job training that our extraordinary young people need.”
Spoken like a true leftist: The answer to evil is material, not moral. If only people had more money in their pockets, there would be fewer violent Islamists.
The reason Muslims gravitate toward violence is a broken moral compass, not a lack of education or jobs.
Obama: “The essential ingredient to real and lasting stability and progress is not less democracy; it’s more democracy.”
The Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected in Egypt. Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza. Democracy is only as good as the values of its voters.
Obama: Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding. … The first Islamic center in New York City was founded in the 1890s.”
Given that America was founded in 1776, doesn’t the second sentence belie the first?
Never before in American history has an American president denied the existence of the greatest evil of his day. That should make everyone — except the Islamist terrorists he won’t name — very uneasy.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Hillary Clinton’s Top Aides Knew from First Minutes that Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack, E-mails Disclose

Hillary Clinton’s Top Aides Knew from First Minutes that Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack, E-mails Disclose 
 by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY February 26, 2015 4:13 PM 

From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility. These revelations and others are disclosed by a trove of e-mails and other documents pried from the State Department by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The FOIA litigation focuses on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the government actions before, during, and after the Benghazi attack, in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was murdered by terrorists. Also killed in the attack were State Department information management officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were contract security employees and who had fought heroically, saving numerous American lives. At least ten other Americans were wounded, some quite seriously. At 4:07 p.m., just minutes after the terrorist attack began, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and Joseph McManus, Mrs. Clinton’s executive assistant, received an e-mail from the State Department’s operations center (forwarded to her by Maria Sand, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton). It contained a report from the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO), entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack.” The e-mail explained that approximately 20 armed people had fired shots at the diplomatic mission, that explosions had been heard as well, and that Ambassador Stevens was believed to be in the compound with at least four other State Department officials. About a half-hour later, another e-mail — this one from Scott Bultrowicz, then director of diplomatic security (DSCC) — related: 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 [4 p.m.] DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 [4:14 p.m.] RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire. At 6:06 p.m., another e-mail that went to top State Department officials explained that the local al-Qaeda affiliate had claimed responsibility for the attack: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU):  “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli” Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it, Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” This was a reference to an obscure anti-Islamic video trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims. Secretary Clinton’s statement took pains to add that “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” — further intimating that the video was the cause of the attack. I have previously recounted that this official Clinton statement was issued shortly after 10 p.m. — minutes after President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke briefly on the telephone about events in Benghazi, according to Clinton’s congressional testimony. The White House initially denied that Obama had spoken with Clinton or other top cabinet officials that night. The president’s version of events changed after Secretary Clinton’s testimony. As I’ve also previously detailed (see here and here), Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ deputy who was in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was the main State Department official in Libya briefing his superiors that night. He testified before Congress that he briefed Secretary Clinton and her top aides at 8 p.m. He further testified that the video was a “non-event” in Benghazi. Hicks added that he was clear in his briefing and other communications with his superiors that the Benghazi operation was a terrorist attack. Indeed, at the time he briefed Clinton, the pressing concern was that Ambassador Stevens might then be being held at a hospital that was under the control of terrorists. An hour later, at 9 p.m., Hicks learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens had been killed. At 12:11 a.m., about two hours after the issuance of Secretary Clinton’s statement suggesting that the video had prompted the violence, Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief-of-staff, e-mailed State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to ask, “Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one is hanging out there.” This appears to be a suggestion that the State Department allow Secretary Clinton’s statement stand alone as the department’s narrative for the media. At the time, the attack was still ongoing and there were still press inquiries about Ambassador Stevens’s whereabouts and well-being.   The revelations in the newly released e-mails were unveiled by Judicial Watch this afternoon at a press conference in Washington. In a press statement, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton asserted that the e-mails left “no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened.” Mr. Fitton further opined that “it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.’ The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them.” 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414500/hillary-clintons-top-aides-knew-first-minutes-benghazi-was-terrorist-attack-e-mails

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Black History Biden: Veep calls for 'emancipation' of people's wealth


Black History Biden: Veep calls for 'emancipation' of people's wealth




Vice President Joe Biden used a Black History Month event at his official residence Monday night to decry the rich, both white and black, for stunting economic growth and suggested that “emancipation” is in order.
“A lot of wealthy white and black people aren't bad but they control 1 percent of the economy and this cannot stand,” Biden told about 100 guests, including past civil rights activists and NBC weatherman Al Roker.
“It's not fair because the business experts are saying that concentration of wealth is stunting growth. So let's do something that's worthy of emancipation,” said Biden, according to a press pool report of the event.
Then, explaining the impact of Civil War era emancipation, Biden concluded, “What happened is not only did we move toward freeing black Americans but also the conscience of white Americans.”


The White House has made income inequality an issue for the last two years of President Obama’s second term in office.
Biden detailed advancements for African-Americans, but said the administration’s job isn’t done.
“You know better than other groups that there is so much more to do. We find ourselves where a lot of disparities still exist,” he said according to the pool report.
Biden: “We have a chance right now and in the next two years to make a fundamental change in that equation. We have come from crisis to recovery and we're in a position for a renaissance. We find ourselves in a position. We know that 60 percent of jobs require a college education but middle class and poor folks have been left behind. That's why we're about changing the equation for working families in America and that's why the president is focused on childcare to job training to college help and education to free community colleges. This is the way to change the equation and shame on us if we miss the opportunity.”
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted atpbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/black-history-biden-veep-calls-for-emancipation-of-peoples-wealth/article/2560680

The End Run

The End Run

Obama's regs will make Internet slow as in Europe, warn FCC, FEC commissioners



Obama's regs will make Internet slow as in Europe, warn FCC, FEC commissioners

BY 
As the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission toy with regulating aspects of the Internet, critics on those agencies are warning that speed and freedom of speech are in jeopardy.
In a joint column, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman, leveled the boom on the Obama-favored regulations, essentially charging that it will muck up the freedom the nation has come to expect from the Internet.
In one key passage of the column published in Politico, the duo wrote Monday that heavy-handed FCC regulations like those imposed in Europe will significantly slow down Internet speech.


“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote.
They also joined to warn about the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission eyeing regulation of political speech on the Internet.
Noting recent votes on the issue that ended in a political deadlock, the two wrote, “these close votes and the risk of idiosyncratic case-by-case enforcement inevitably discourage citizens and groups from speaking freely online about politics.”
Bottom line, they warned: “Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.”
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted atpbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Immigration: Up vs. Down, Not Republican vs. Democrat

Immigration: Up vs. Down, Not Republican vs. Democrat 
 by MARK KRIKORIAN 

My colleague Jon Feere appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning opposite Crystal Williams of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and what struck me was the callers. C-SPAN offers three call-in numbers, for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, and I’d guess on issues like taxes or guns or abortion that yields a variety of views. But whatever you might think from watching the Senate battle over funding of Obama’s lawless amnesty decrees — where every Democrat has been voting for amnesty and against enforcement — out in the real world support for enforcing our immigration laws is not a partisan issue. So whatever phone line people use to call in to C-SPAN, my experience from being on the show has been that most callers are pro-enforcement. On today’s show every caller was pro-enforcement (except one who was off-topic and another who was unintelligible). Some samples: A Black American Democrat from Los Angeles: If you want to see how negative the impact of illegal immigration has been on a community, come to Los Angeles. The black community has been pretty much overrun by illegals. . . . I’ve been a Democrat all my life but I’m seriously considering becoming an independent if the trend continues in the Democratic party the way it’s going and I know a lot of other African Americans who feel the same way. . . . I listen to C-SPAN every day and I hear African Americans calling in complaining about illegal immigration, and it seems to be that it’s falling on deaf ears. An African immigrant calling in to the Independents line: I used to be a Democrat but I’m very disappointed by the Democrat party. . . . When the president said more than 20 times that it wasn’t his constitutional prerogative to give amnesty to the illegals, and all of the sudden he changed, it makes me really think that he’s not enforcing the Constitution that he was elected to enforce. . . . The president is also saying they cannot enforce the border. . . . Let’s just imagine that right now we gave [garbled] to all the illegals, and one year later we have the same problem because our border is not secure. What will we have achieved? I think the border should be secured first. We are the United States of America — we send people on the Moon, we have the most powerful military in the world and you are telling me that we cannot enforce our own border? A Democratic woman from Georgia: I still work at 77 to pay my insurance and when these people [illegal aliens] go to a hospital and they don’t have insurance I feel like they are charging me extra if I go to a hospital to pay for these people that don’t have insurance. A Black American from Miami on the Republican line: It’s already hard enough to find a job . . . now Obama and you guys are trying to legalize people to come here to take jobs that we need. . . . You guys are more concerned about the illegal aliens, people from other countries, than you are about your own citizens, and that’s concerning. . . . What are you guys trying to do, destroy the foundations of our country? An Independent from Ohio: Why is it more important to protect illegal aliens than innocent Americans by not going ahead and just passing the budget and stopping the executive action of the president? Another Democratic woman: These people are committing felonies and so are their employers. C-SPAN callers may not be a cross-section of Americans in general, but they are probably a pretty good sampling of likely voters. Republican presidential hopefuls might want to take notice.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414096/tom-cotton-isis-already-winning-without-obama-legitimizing-them-islamic-label-brendan

Firearms, Kings, and the Emergence of the Peaceful Life

Firearms, Kings, and the Emergence of the Peaceful Life 

 by CHARLES C. W. COOKE February 19, 2015 3:59 PM 

Over at the Adam Smith Institute, Kate Andrews offers up a provocative post. “Make Britain safer,” she cries. ”Bring back handguns.” In proposing this course, Andrews is relying heavily on a study that purports to show that the introduction of firearms into the civilized world over the past eight hundred years has been instrumental in reducing violent crime. The bottom line: The paper, “Firearms and the Decline of Violence in Europe: 1200-2010”, finds that the sudden historical drops in crime are consistent with the “invention and proliferation of compact, concealable, ready-to-use firearms” which “caused potential assailants to recalculate the probability of a successful assault and seek alternatives to violence.” And unlike the civilizing process theory, Moody’s firearms theory remains consistent with the evidence and breaks in violence. As concealed weapons became more available historically, crime rate dropped radically This chart represents the drop in homicides specifically: Curiously, Moody’s charts show the homicide rate starting to increase again in about 1900, an aberration that the author blames on increased gun control. “The government in England,” Moody writes, “has been placing increasingly stringent controls on guns, especially handguns, since 1920, reducing both the actual and the effective supply of firearm (Malcolm 2002). The homicide rate in England in 1920 was 0.84 and the assault rate was 2.39. In 1999, the corresponding rates were 1.44 and 419.29.” My historian’s hat tells me to be skeptical of research such as this, especially when it so clearly confirms my own political preferences, for any attempt to extract the role of firearms from the endless parade of other factors must, inevitably, run into trouble. Cultural mores change over time; different countries possess different pathologies and virtues; economies decline and rebound. Evidently, the relative importance of a variable such as the availability of firearms will ebb and flow as the circumstances change. Further, there are a few obvious problems with the study’s methodology. Quite how many guns were in circulation four hundred years ago is difficult to know to any necessary degree of accuracy, as is how good Moody’s older crime-rate data can possibly be. And, although it may seem reasonable to presume that “potential assailants” were forced by an increasingly armed population “to recalculate the probability of a successful assault and seek alternatives to violence,” absent any hard testimony this is little more than speculation. There is no question that Moody’s “break points” — significant changes in homicide rates that occur around developments in firearms technology and the advent of gun control — are thought-provoking and contrarian. But, for now at least, I wouldn’t bet the house on their veracity. That being said, the paper does provide yet another indication that the relationship between crime and firearms ownership is extremely complicated. As I noted recently in these pages, even inside the United States, the simplistic modern contention that ”more guns means more crime” is simply incorrect: Obviously, America has a much higher gun-violence rate than do most Western countries, and, obviously, this has something to do with the fact that it host half of the world’s privately owned guns. Nevertheless, beyond noting that a country with lots of guns will have more gun crime than one with no guns at all, the manner in which the raw number of guns interacts with the murder rate is far more complex than it often seems. It is not the case, for example, that a lightly regulated and heavily armed populace is always violent. Vermont, which has a high gun ownership rate and almost no laws governing firearms, is extraordinarily peaceful. Nor, as the past two decades have shown, is it the case that to increase the number of firearms is always to increase the number of incidents in which firearms are used for ill. Certainly, if your aim is to rid the country of all its guns, the claim that “guns cause gun violence” makes sense. If one could snap one’s fingers and make all the firearms disappear, there would be no firearms deaths. But if, like most people, you accept that America’s guns aren’t going anywhere and you want to know what can be done to limit their abuse, it is important to recognize the subtleties here. Those “subtleties” are also in evidence when one compares the United States with other countries. As Kate Andrews correctly notes, “there is no explicit correlation between gun control laws and murder rates between countries.” Switzerland and Israel, she adds, “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” Perhaps culture matters after all? Whatever problems one might have with Moody’s work — and however one regards his proposed explanation — one thing is undeniable: to wit, that as the world has gradually filled with firearms, the murder rate has declined. This being so, we are ultimately discussing how far to go with the available data. Naturally, Moody works hard to link the two sets of data, and to establish a causal link between them. “While there may be other theories,” he writes, the sudden and spectacular decline in violence around 1505 and again around 1610-1621 is consistent with the theory that the invention and proliferation of concealable firearms was responsible, at least in part, for the decline in homicide. The landscape of personal violence was suddenly and permanently altered by the introduction of a new technology. The handgun was the ultimate equalizer. Still, this is by no means the mainstream view. Indeed, it is worth noting that George Mason Professor, Joyce Lee Malcolm — on whose work Moody relies heavily — deliberately shies away from making such jump. Nevertheless, Malcolm is willing to observe aloud that an increase in the possession of firearms does not necessarily lead to an increase in crime. In fact, the opposite is often the case. In England, Malcolm noted in 2002, “Firearms — muskets, birding guns, and pistols — began to come into common use in the sixteenth century . . . From then until 1920 there were no effective restrictions on their possession. The two trends cross; violent crime continued to decline markedly at the very time that guns were becoming increasingly available.” Moody contends that this matters greatly, for Malcolm is here confirming that the largest reduction in homicide in the history of England coincided with the introduction of firearms and that when firearms were most widely used and completely unrestricted, in the late 19th and early 20th century, England enjoyed historically low overall homicide rates (0.76 from 1901-1910, compared to 1.37 from 2001- 2010). Indeed. Again: This is not to say that “more guns equals less crime.” But it is to refute once again the nonsensical suggestion that there is a hard link between the number of a firearms in a given country and the instances of criminal abuse. As the Bureau of Justice Statistics recorded in 2013, “the U.S. homicide rate declined by nearly half (49%), from 9.3 homicides per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1992 to 4.7 in 2011, falling to the lowest level since 1963.” In roughly that time, it is estimated that the number of privately owned firearms in the United States has gone from 192 million (in 1994) to 310 million (in 2012), and that the laws governing their use have been loosened in almost every state. Did they increase cause the decline in crime? I honestly have no idea. But it certainly didn’t bring about an increase, either. Perhaps, ’twas ever thus.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414096/tom-cotton-isis-already-winning-without-obama-legitimizing-them-islamic-label-brendan

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

OBAMA’S AMNESTY: IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN YOU THOUGHT


As the implications of President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty orders come into focus, more adverse consequences are being identified on almost a daily basis. Here are two that have recently come to light.
First, illegals who are given Social Security cards under Obama’s amnesty will be eligible for billions of dollars in cash payments from the federal government. That’s right: we will reward them for coming here illegally, and encourage others to do the same:
Obama’s November announcement paves the way for up to 4 million illegal immigrants to obtain Social Security numbers and work permits. After some initial confusion, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress this week that this would make them eligible for what’s known as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provided they’ve been working.
“If you get a Social Security number, you can then file for this year if you’re working, and if you earned income in the three years before that and filed, you’ll be eligible,” Koskinen told a House oversight committee hearing.
Further, he said, they would likely be able to get that credit even if they hadn’t filed for three years. According to some estimates, the tax credit combined with others could add up to billions over the next decade.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is what’s known as a refundable tax credit, intended for working people who have low to moderate incomes. The average credit varies based on their number of children, but can be worth over $6,000 per year. …
“These are not tax ‘refunds’ but direct, free cash payments from the U.S. treasury to low-income illegal immigrants who owe no taxes,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement. “It is a dramatic cash transfer from lawful residents to unlawful residents, required by the president’s imperial amnesty. …
During a Senate Finance Committee hearing earlier this month, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, noted that a top IRS official determined as far back as 2000 that individuals granted what’s known as “deferred action” — which is the term for what Obama is using — would “be able to amend returns for the previous years to claim the EITC for years they worked illegally in the United States once they obtain their Social Security number.”
In other words, illegal immigrants granted de facto legal status by the Obama administration in the coming months could qualify for credits this year, and even retroactively for past years, whether they paid taxes or not.
In a letter sent last week to Treasury inspector general, Sens. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., noted that “under EITC rules, anyone eligible for the program can also ask for payments to cover the three prior years as well. This means that an illegal alien with a new Social Security Number can get a payment of more than $24,000 for years they were working illegally.”
Even if they paid no taxes in any of those years. This is one more kick in the teeth of America’s middle class by the Obama administration.
Then there is the matter of citizenship and voting rights. From the Democrats’ perspective, the key benefit of opening the immigration floodgates and legalizing millions of illegal aliens is that these actions will create a large pool of Democratic voters. That is contemplated by Obama’s executive orders, too. Senator Jeff Sessions says:
We’ve learned that illegal immigrants will be given billions in free cash tax credits. We’ve learned that illegal immigrants will be given trillions in lifetime federal entitlement benefits through Social Security and Medicare. We’ve learned that illegal immigrants will be given driver’s licenses, creating new avenues for voter fraud. We’ve learned that the President’s edict will allow companies to replace American workers with illegal workers instead.
Our laws have been dismantled, stripped bare.
Now today House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte has unearthed a new scandal. In his executive decree, the President has opened up the possibility that hundreds of thousands of individuals illegally in the United States will be “paroled” and given U.S. citizenship. Such a policy extends birthright citizenship to the foreign-born who unlawfully set their feet upon American soil.
It is an offense to the very idea of citizenship as something sacred, precious, and treasured.
… Maintaining and enforcing borders, and the rules of entry and departure, are not partisan fodder but the pillars of sovereignty; at its most basic level, the question for the nation is whether we wish to remain one.”
Despite all of the disastrous effects of the president’s amnesty orders that have been documented, the GOP leadership in the Senate appears strangely ambivalent about whether it wants to do anything to block their implementation.