-Jeff Sessions Warns of ‘Dangerous Moment': Confirming Loretta Lynch Brings U.S. Closer to ‘Constitutional Tipping Point’
-Bush’s DHS Secretaries Join With Napolitano: Fund Obama’s Amnesty
-Sessions Reiterates Opposition To Lynch: ‘Are We Through The Looking Glass?”
28 Jan 2015 by Matthew Boyle
Perhaps by accident, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States actually undercut the legal justification the president has given for his executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
The exchange in which she undercut Obama’s legal argument happened during a line of questioning with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).
“I want to speak with you briefly going back to prosecutorial discretion,” Lee started out his line of questioning. “As a former prosecutor, I’m sure you’d agree with me that there are limits to prosecutorial discretion in the sense at least that it’s intended to be an exception to the rule and not intended to swallow the rule itself. Would you agree with me that far?”
“Certainly, sir,” Lynch replied. “I believe that in every instance, every prosecutor has to make the best determination of the problems presented in their own area, in my case in my district in my priorities and within those priorities exercise discretion.”
Lee continued:
Right, so prosecutors inevitably have limited resources so it’s understandable why they would choose—when they have to prioritize—why they would put more resources for example into punishing bank robberies than they would into punishing pick-pocketers. And perhaps they might put more resources into going after pick-pocketers than they do going after people who exceed the speed limit. But at some point there are limits to this. And that doesn’t mean that it would be okay, that it would be a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion to issue permits for people to speed, right?
“Certainly, sir,” Lynch agreed.
I think that if a prosecutor were to come to the view that they had to prioritize one crime over another, you would always still want to retain the ability—even if it was an area that was not an immediate priority—if for example it became one. Because if a particular neighborhood was being victimized, or again to use your issue of speeding, there were deaths resulting from that. You would want to have the ability to, if you could, take resources and focus on that issue. It might not be the first priority but you would want to have the ability to go back and deal with that issue.
In her answer, Lynch effectively admits that what Obama has done with executive amnesty—providing legal documentation and work permits for millions of illegal aliens, thereby legalizing their status in the United States—far exceeds any reasonable definition of prosecutorial discretion. She also said that prosecutors should keep the door open to prosecuting an illegal action that isn’t currently a priority if it becomes one eventually. So even if illegal immigration isn’t a priority right now for whatever reason, prosecutors need to be able to go after that crime later.
Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. Harvard economist George Borjas and countless others, including U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow, have detailed the extraordinary effect illegal immigration has on job opportunities and wages for American workers across the country—especially in the severely-impoverished black communities nationwide. Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s wife, in a 1991 in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) [see below], detailed how illegal immigration hurts workers in the black community.
We, the undersigned members of the Black Leadership Forum, write to urge you to postpone introduction of your employer sanctions repeal legislation until we have had an opportunity to report to you what we believe to be the devastating impact the repeal would have on the economic condition of un- and semi-skilled workers–a disproportionate number of whom are African-American and Hispanic; and until we have had the opportunity to propose to you and to our Hispanic brothers and sisters, what we believe could be a number of effective means of eliminating the discrimination occasioned by employer sanctions, without losing the protection sanctions provide for U.S. workers, especially minority workers.
Lee continued his line of questioning, pressing Lynch further on prosecutorial discretion.
And for that reason, prosecutorial authorities don’t typically go out and say “we’re only going to punish you for a civil violation—say a traffic offense—if you speed and it results in an accident with injuries.” They leave open the very real possibility, indeed the likelihood, that someone can and will be brought to justice in one way or another for any civil violation they commit while speeding?
“Certainly, I can’t speak to all law enforcement agencies—I know that, depending upon the agencies, sometimes the priorities are known, sometimes they’re expressed,” Lynch said. “Every office has guidelines. Certainly, the law enforcement agencies are aware of certain guidelines like for example a certain dollar amount involving certain crimes.”
Lee then honed in on the permits question.
But if someone went out and said ‘I’m going to issue a permit to someone, saying that they may speed, that they may go up to 100 miles per hour without receiving a ticket,’ unless that person were also in charge of making the law in that jurisdiction that would be a usurpation of the system by which our laws are made. Would you agree with that?
Lynch replied, “again without knowing more about it, I’m not able to respond to the hypothetical. But it certainly doesn’t sound like something a law enforcement officer would be engaged in. But again without knowing more of the facts, I’m not able to respond to your hypothetical.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/28/sen-mike-lee-helps-loretta-lynch-undercut-legal-argument-for-obamas-executive-amnesty/
—
Coretta Scott King in 1991: Hold Employers Accountable for Hiring Illegal Aliens
28 Aug 2013 by Matthew Boyle
Pro-amnesty activists trying to co-opt the civil rights messages of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to push immigration reform through Congress seem to be directly contradicting the wishes of the late Dr. King and his wife, Coretta Scott King. Mrs. King carried on her husband’s civil rights activism after he was assassinated.
In a 1991 letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Coretta Scott King and other black community leaders argued that illegal immigration would have a devastating impact on the black community. At the time, Hatch was working his U.S. Senate position to undo some enforcement measures laid out in Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty agreement, attempting to weaken interior enforcement and sanctions against employers who hired illegal aliens.
We, the undersigned members of the Black Leadership Forum, write to urge you to postpone introduction of your employer sanctions repeal legislation until we have had an opportunity to report to you what we believe to be the devastating impact the repeal would have on the economic condition of un- and semi-skilled workers–a disproportionate number of whom are African-American and Hispanic; and until we have had the opportunity to propose to you and to our Hispanic brothers and sisters, what we believe could be a number of effective means of eliminating the discrimination occasioned by employer sanctions, without losing the protection sanctions provide for U.S. workers, especially minority workers.
While the members of the Black Leadership Forum wrote they had “divergent views” at the time on the employer sanctions regarding illegal immigration, they wrote they were “united in three respects.”
First, they wrote they were united in being “fully committed to the elimination of the root causes of national origin discrimination under the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) [Reagan’s amnesty], as well as discriminatory impact.”
Second, they said they stood together in their belief that “there are a number of effective ways to remedy discrimination resulting from IRCA, without tampering with employer sanctions. Some measures we support are contained in the Report and Recommendations of the Taskforce on IRCA-Related Discimination and in the 1990 GAO Report on Immigration Reform: Employer Sanctions and Question of Discrimination.”
Third, the writers said they were unanimous in their request for a discussion with Hatch and other members of Congress on “the importance of employer sanctions to the economic security of African Americans and Hispanic workers.”
The black leaders wrote that they feared lack of interior immigration enforcement would lead to future illegal immigration, and the hiring of those illegal immigrants into jobs that could be occupied by black and Hispanic American citizens.
“We are concerned, Senator Hatch, that your proposed remedy to the employer sanctions-based discrimination, namely, the elimination of employer sanctions, will cause another problem–the revival of the pre-1986 discrimination against black and brown U.S. and documented workers, in favor of cheap labor–the undocumented workers,” they wrote. “This would undoubtedly exacerbate an already severe economic crisis in communities where there are large numbers of new immigrants.”
Coretta Scott King and the other black leaders added that they were “concerned that some who support the repeal of employer sanctions are using ‘discrimination’ as a guise for their desire to abuse undocumented workers and to introduce cheap labor into the U.S. workforce.”
America does not have a labor shortage. With roughly 7 million people unemployed, and double that number discouraged from seeking work, the removal of employer sanctions threatens to add additional U.S. workers to the rolls and drive down wages. Moreover, the repeal of employer sanctions will inevitably add to our social problems and place an unfair burden on the poor in the cities in which most new immigrants cluster–cities which are already suffering housing shortages and insufficient human needs services.
The black leaders then called for education reform to train American workers for jobs, rather than immigration reform to bring in foreigners to fill those jobs while American workers suffered. “Senator Hatch, we believe that what this country needs is not to prematurely scrap employer sanctions, but rather, we need education and training programs designed to prepare the unemployed, especially African Americans, Hispanics, and others at great risk, to meet the market demands of tomorrow,” they wrote.
The authors added that while “not a panacea for the nation’s illegal immigration problems, employer sanctions are one necessary means of stopping the exploitation of vulnerable workers and the undercutting of American jobs and living standards.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/08/28/coretta-scott-king-in-1991-hold-companies-accountable-for-hiring-illegal-aliens/
—-
Jeff Sessions Warns of ‘Dangerous Moment': Confirming Loretta Lynch Brings U.S. Closer to ‘Constitutional Tipping Point’
28 Jan 2015 by Matthew Boyle
Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is imploring his colleagues to join him in opposition to Loretta Lynch’s nomination as Attorney General of the United States.
Sessions issued a lengthy statement on Wednesday evening after Lynch testified all day Wednesday in which he details the problems he has with Lynch and with Obama’s executive amnesty. Lynch’s support for Obama’s executive amnesty is the linchpin of Sessions’ opposition to her, and Sessions will presumably be joined by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who before Lynch was nominated—and before the election—said that a “condition” of whoever is nominated to replace Eric Holder as the Attorney General must be opposition to Obama’s lawlessness, including executive amnesty.
McConnell’s office will wait until the Senate Judiciary Committee officially wraps its two days of confirmation hearings with Lynch before weighing. But his pre-election promise to oppose Holder’s replacement over immigration seems ironclad.
Sessions describes why the president’s executive amnesty is lawless.
President Obama’s executive amnesty represents one of the most breathtaking exertions of executive power in the history of this country,” Sessions said. “After Congress rejected the President’s favored immigration legislation, the White House met with the interest groups who had crafted that bill and implemented the major provisions of the legislation that Congress had rejected through executive fiat.
Sessions then notes that at the beginning of this nomination process, he made his expectations clear: Any Holder replacement must oppose Obama’s executive amnesty.
The legal opinion attempting to justify this circumvention of Congress was issued by the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel. At the outset of this nomination process, I said that no Senator should vote to confirm anyone for this position—the top law enforcement job in America—who supported the President’s unlawful actions. Congress must defend its constitutional role, which is clearly threatened. Unfortunately, when asked today whether she found the President’s actions to be “legal and constitutional,” Ms. Lynch said that she did. I therefore am unable to support her nomination.
Sessions also hammered Lynch about her statement that she believes illegal aliens have a “right” to work in this country, just as much so as any American citizen. Lynch attempted to somewhat walk that back later in the day with the help of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Justice Department and a willing Politico reporter who reframed her new statement as somehow clarifying her previous comments.
“My concerns are furthered by Ms. Lynch’s unambiguous declaration that ‘the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace,’” Sessions said. “Such a notion of civil rights, as Civil Rights Commission Member Peter Kirsanow articulated, is ‘incoherent and ahistorical.’ Essential to civil rights is the equal and uniform application of the laws. When the President capriciously suspends those laws and provides benefits to people here unlawfully, he injures the rights of lawful workers—denying them the protections Congress passed to secure their jobs and wages.”
Sessions concluded by citing law professor Jonathan Turley deriding Obama’s executive amnesty. Turley will be a part of the panel that testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday about Lynch’s nomination, and as a liberal has delivered some of the sharpest criticisms of Obama’s executive amnesty.
“We are at a dangerous moment,” Sessions said. “Professor Jonathan Turley described it as a ‘constitutional tipping point.’ For the Senate to approve this nomination would bring us another step closer to the point’s edge.”
Sessions is a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and in addition to chairing the important immigration subcommittee, he served as the full panel’s ranking member during the first two years of the Obama administration.
At this time, it appears Lynch will be confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and sent to the full Senate after that.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/28/jeff-sessions-oppose-loretta-lynchs-nomination-as-attorney-general-over-executive-amnesty/
—-
Sessions Reiterates Opposition To Lynch: ‘Are We Through The Looking Glass?”
29 Jan 2015 by Caroline May
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) voiced outrage at attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch’s stance on executive amnesty and her answers to his questions about illegal immigrant workers during the second hearing on Lynch’s nomination Thursday.
“I don’t see any need for Congress to confirm somebody to be the chief law enforcement officer of this nation who is at that table insisting that she intends to execute a policy that is contrary to law and to what Congress desires and what the American people desire. And says that someone here unlawfully is as much entitled to a job in this as somebody who is here lawfully. It is just beyond my comprehension,” Sessions said.
Sessions announced Wednesday he would be voting against Lynch’s nomination, following the nominee’s testimony before the committee.
The Alabama lawmaker took issue particularly with Lynch’s answers indicating that she believes President Obama’s executive amnesty to be “legal and constitutional” and that she said that “the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here.”
“Are we through the looking glass?” Sessions said during Thursday’s hearing, “Can’t we see plain fact?”
According to Sessions, the issue is no longer about politics, but rather the crucial balance of power in government.
“So everybody wants to talk about the politics, ‘Well the president can do this, he’s shutting down Homeland Security,’ all these complaints but the real question is fundamental: What are we going to do to defend our Constitutional heritage and what will this Congress be able to say to subsequent Congresses if we acquiesce and in these kind of activities,” he said. “I think it has permanent ramifications for the relationships for the branches of government.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/29/sessions-reiterates-opposition-to-lynch-are-we-through-the-looking-glass/
—-
Bush’s DHS Secretaries Join With Napolitano: Fund Obama’s Amnesty
January 29, 2015 -By Barbara Hollingsworth
(CNSNews.com) – Three former secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)–including two that served under Republican President George W. Bush–have sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urging him not to include language in the DHS funding bill to prohibit President Obama unilateral executive actions on immigration that will allow as many as five million illegal aliens to stay in the United States without fear of deportation.
They said that if Congress did include such language in the bill “the likelihood of a Department of Homeland Security shutdown increases.” In other words: President Obama might veto the bill and shutdown the department.
DHS-Funding-Letter-to-Senate-Leaders
http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/DHS-Funding-Letter-to-Senate-Leaders.pdf
“We appreciate that Congress possesses the authority to authorize and appropriate funds expended by the federal government,” said the letter, which was signed by former DHS secretaries Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff and Janet Napolitano. “We do not question your desire to have a larger debate about the nation’s immigration laws.
“However, we cannot emphasize enough that the DHS’s responsibilities are much broader than its responsibility to oversee the federal immigration agencies and to protect our borders. And funding for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy by the debate about immigration,” the letter continued.
The three former DHS secretaries pointed out that President Obama “has said very publicly that he will ‘oppose any legislative effort to undermine the executive actions that he’ has taken on immigration,” adding that “tethering a bill to fund DHS in FY 2015 to a legislative response” increases the “likelihood of a Department of Homeland Security shutdown.”
Nowhere in the letter is there any indication that the three former heads of DHS are also urging President Obama to reconsider his position.
Administration officials have emphasized that the president will not back down if the new Republican majority in the Senate passes a bill overriding his executive actions on immigration, even if that means vetoing funding for the entire department.
“If a bill that includes such language comes to the president’s desk, his staff and I will recommend to the president that he veto it,” current DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson noted in a letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) earlier this month. “Now is not the time for the budget of the Department of Homeland Security to become a political volleyball.”
“There is no reason to tinker with the executive actions at all,” added Cecilia Munoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.
However, McConnell himself has pointed out that by bypassing Congress, the president “lacked the legal authority to act.”
“The action he’s proposed would ignore the law, would reject the voice of the voters, and would impose new unfairness on law-abiding immigrants – all without solving the problem. In fact, his action is more likely to make it even worse,” McConnell said last November shortly after Republicans won control of the Senate.
“If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act,” McConnell vowed.
On January 14, the Republican-led House voted 236-191 to pass legislation funding DHS through the end of September. Current funding for the department runs out at the end of February.
An amendment submitted by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and passed on a roll call vote “prevent[s] any funds from whatever source to be used to carry-out the Executive actions announced on November 20, 2014 to grant deferred action to certain unlawful aliens… and four of the ‘Morton Memos’ on prosecutorial discretion and immigration enforcement priorities issued in 2011 and 2012 that effectively prevent certain classes of unlawful aliens from being removed from the country.”
Aderholt’s amendment also “provides that no funds may be used to grant any Federal benefit to any alien as a result of the policies defunded.”
Other amendments require state and local officials to detain criminal illegal aliens who would otherwise be released so that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials can begin deportation proceedings, and prohibit the Executive Branch from using any DHS funds to “consider new, renewal or previously denied DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] applications.”
“We do not take this action lightly, but simply there is no alternative,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said on the House floor at the time. “This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself.”
The Senate is expected to consider the DHS funding bill next week.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bushs-dhs-secretaries-join-napolitano-fund-obamas-amnesty
Tagged: abortion, al-Qaida, “Muslim Mafia, benghazi, Caliphate, Chemical Weapons, Christian, collapse of America, Constitution, dictator, Ebola, foreclosure, Hamas, immigration, IRS, Islam, Islamist, Israel, jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi, NSA, Obama, obamacare, radical Islam, rights, Second Amendment, Syria, Tea Party, Tyrannical Government, voter fraud, White House