HEALTHCARE:
Another Side Effect of Obamacare: Increased Food Stamp Enrollment?
“Expanded Medicaid under Obamacare could be responsible for more people signing up for food stamps, the Associated Press reported. That’s because so many state agencies are making it simpler to enroll in multiple government assistance programs at once if they are eligible for Medicaid. In New Mexico, enrollment for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps, grew by 5 percent in 14 months. “We attribute the increase in SNAP to Medicaid expansion,” New Mexico Human Services Department Deputy Secretary Sean Pearson told the AP. “When folks go online now, they have the ability to apply for multiple programs in a single session.” Overall food stamp use declined from 2013 to 2014 nationally, but increased in 11 states – most of which streamlined the enrollment process under Medicaid expansion. And it could become costly, the AP reported. The average food stamp payment is $125.35 per month. For the 632,000 new food stamp users in the 11 states, that would be another $79 million cost to the taxpayers. The AP noted that it can’t be definitively determined whether the entire increase is a result the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamcare. In most states the increase was between 1 percent and 6 percent over the last two years. However, in Nevada, food stamp enrollment increased by 14 percent. In Illinois, food stamp enrollment jumped 2.5 percent to 2.08 million since 2013, during a time when the state’s unemployment rate fell from 9.1 percent to 6.2 percent. In West Virginia, the 4 percent increase came because people were “more engaged with our systems and more aware what they’re eligible for,” Jeremiah Samples, of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, told the AP…”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/22/another-side-effect-of-obamacare-increased-food-stamp-enrollment/
States where health law seems to increase food-stamp use (list)
“President Barack Obama’s health care law seems to be enticing more Americans to apply for food stamps in 11 states, despite significant improvement in the economy.
Under the law, many states tried to improve Medicaid and food-stamp enrollment systems by making it easier for people to register for food benefits when they sign up for health coverage. Below is a list of the 11 states with recent enrollment increases in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/22/states-where-health-law-seems-to-increase-food-sta/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Health law brings growth in food stamps in some states
“President Barack Obama’s health care law has had a surprising side effect: In some states, it appears to be enticing more Americans to apply for food stamps, even as the economy improves. New, streamlined application systems built for the health care overhaul are making it easier for people to enroll in government benefit programs, including insurance coverage and food stamps. In most affected states, the enrollment increases were not huge, ranging from 1 percent to 6 percent over two years, according to an Associated Press analysis. The sole exception was Nevada, where enrollment shot up 14 percent. The enrollment is climbing as Republicans try to cut the costs of the food program and at a time when food-stamp usage would normally be expected to decline. Eligibility rules have not changed. West Virginia’s food-stamp enrollment increased 4 percent after a Medicaid expansion that was part of the health care changes. Enrollment jumped because people were “more engaged with our systems and more aware what they’re eligible for,” said Jeremiah Samples of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. With the economy improving, national food-stamp enrollment declined in 2013 and 2014. But in 11 states, demand rose between January 2013 and the end of 2014, the AP analysis showed…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/22/health-law-brings-growth-in-food-stamps-in-some-st/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Shreds of doubt about Obamacare
Five years in, the president’s health care promises remain unrealized
“Last week’s tax-filing deadline was a little bit more complicated than in the past, thanks to Obamacare. Americans had to prove to the Internal Revenue Service that they had health insurance last year — or risk a tax penalty. Many of those that shopped in the exchanges, meanwhile, learned that they actually owed the government money because they misreported their incomes when applying for subsidized coverage. It’s unlikely that these folks would agree with President Obama’s assertion on the law’s recent five-year anniversary that it was working “beyond a shred of a doubt.” Obamacare has failed to increase coverage, deliver affordable care, or significantly improve the economy. The White House claims that since Obamacare took effect, the number of uninsured Americans has dropped from 48 million to 32 million. “In just over one year, the ranks of the uninsured have dropped by nearly one-third,” the president said. But that’s misleading. According to the Census Bureau, the uninsured rate peaked in 2010 at 15.5 percent, four years before the individual mandate kicked in….”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/sally-pipes-obamacare-promises-unrealized/
Bill to repeal health insurance tax gains steam in House
“A bipartisan bill to help health insurance companies avoid fees under ObamaCare is now backed by a majority of House lawmakers, its sponsors announced Wednesday. The bill would repeal an ObamaCare provision known as the “health insurance tax” (HIT), which charges insurers an annual fee to help pay for the healthcare law. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-La.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who introduced the bill in February, announced Wednesday that they have reached 218 co-sponsors, which they hope will quickly lead to a full House vote. “I am proud to reach this important milestone and look forward to an expeditious consideration and passage of this important legislation through the House of Representatives,” Boustany wrote in a statement. The bill has six Democratic co-sponsors: Patrick Murphy (Fla.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Brad Ashford (Neb.), Julia Brownley (Calif.) and Gwen Graham (Fla.). Murphy is running for Senate. The provision has been at the center of a years-long lobbying campaign by insurers and business groups. “Reaching 218 co-sponsors is an important milestone that adds to the growing momentum in Congress to repeal the HIT,” the insurer trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, wrote in a statement. The tax, which costs a total of $145 billion, gradually increases during the rollout of the law. While individuals are not directly taxed, critics of the provision argue that insurers are forced to pass along the burden through higher premiums. A similar measure was introduced in the Senate during the budget-drafting process earlier this month, co-sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) The legislation also reached a 218 majority in 2012, before Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/239703-bill-to-repeal-health-insurance-tax-hits-majority-in-house
Vitter’s Obamacare Probe Continues With Subpoena Vote
“Sen. David Vitter’s crusade against government contributions to congressional health care plans continues this week with a vote to subpoena documents from the D.C. government, but he may have some dissenters in the Republican ranks. The Louisiana Republican is the chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, and he has used his perch to investigate congressional enrollment in the District of Columbia’s small-business exchange, which allowed for a government contribution to congressional health care plans. But his investigation has some members questioning whether this is an issue for his committee. “I’m not even confident it’s within the jurisdiction of the committee, so I still have serious questions about it,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., told CQ Roll Call Wednesday. “I have two concerns: whether we have jurisdiction and whether that’s the proper role of this committee.” Ayotte is one of 10 Republicans and nine Democrats on the committee who will vote Thursday on whether to subpoena the D.C. Health Benefit and Exchange Authority for un-redacted congressional applications to the small-business exchange. A recent taxpayer lawsuit obtained the applications, showing that the House and Senate claimed to have fewer than 50 employees and were also classified as “state/local government,” but the names of the House and Senate employees who verified the applications were redacted. In February, Vitter asked House and Senate administrators to reveal which employees signed the applications, but administrators did not supply the information. So after months of unanswered requests — and an appeal to Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, for help — Vitter is making a last-ditch effort to force DCHBEA to comply by issuing a subpoena. But to do so, Vitter either needs the support of ranking member Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., or from the majority of committee members. Shaheen confirmed Wednesday she is a “no,” so Vitter will likely need all the panel’s Republicans to support him. Vitter issued a statement Tuesday that included a line noting “most committee Republicans” would support the subpoena. However, none of the seven GOP committee members approached by CQ Roll Call Wednesday said they would vote in favor of the resolution, though they did not say they would vote against it. The lawmakers either did not want to divulge their vote ahead of time, or were still examining the issue…”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/vitter-obamacare-probe-continues-with-subpoena-vote/?dcz=
Senator Asks Colleagues to Take ‘One Step Closer to Living Under Obamacare’
“Sen. David Vitter wants answers on Obamacare. On Thursday, he’ll learn if the Republican members of the committee he chairs are behind him. The senator from Louisiana has been leading a crusade to uncover why members of Congress and their staffers receive their health insurance on D.C.’s small business exchange—and the employer contribution that goes along with that designation—rather than the individual marketplace. So Vitter’s Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee will vote on whether to subpoena documents sent to the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority (which oversees the District’s health marketplace). The panel roster has 10 Republicans and nine Democrats, so Vitter will likely need every Republican on his side to approve the subpoena. But on Tuesday, Sens. Deb Fischer and Kelly Ayotte didn’t say how they would vote; they said they weren’t confident there was going to be a vote on the subpoena and didn’t comment on whether they would support Vitter’s endeavor. And Sen. James Risch wouldn’t definitively say how he planned to vote, as he has work to do to catch up to speed before he takes a position. A news release from the committee stated that a vote will occur Thursday and that “most Committee Republicans are committed to supporting Vitter’s request to subpoena the documents.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the panel’s top Democrat, opposes the subpoena, according to her press secretary, Vivek Kembaiyan. How Congress receives its health care has been a thorny issue dating back to the Affordable Care Act’s negotiations. Democrats say Congress is a large employer, and thus should provide its employees with health coverage, as the law mandates large companies must do…”
http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2015/04/senator-asks-colleagues-take-one-step-closer-living-under-obamacare/110752/
Republicans: Keep Obamacare subsidies two more years
“Two Republican senators are proposing to keep Obamacare subsidies flowing for two years should the Supreme Court strike them this summer. Low- and mid-income people would be able to keep their subsidized health insurance plans through August 2017 — although no new enrollees would be allowed — under legislation introduced Wednesday by Georgia Sens. Johnny Isakson and David Perdue. It’s the latest GOP proposal for how to move forward if the Supreme Court blocks insurance subsidies to residents in a majority of the states in the closely-watched case King v. Burwell. If the court sides with the challengers, it would mean millions of Americans who are relying on subsidies to help afford insurance won’t get them anymore. Republicans hope the subsidies are blocked, but at the same time they worry they could be blamed if Americans are suddenly deprived of the federal aid. House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan is working on a contingency plan and other Republicans have outlined responses, too. Isakson and Perdue would maintain the subsidies for a longer period of time than any other Republicans have yet proposed. Prolonging them for two more years would give Republicans time to agree on how to approach Obamacare — including perhaps repealing it — should they win the White House in 2016. President Obama is likely to block any of their efforts to significantly change the law while he remains in office. Their plan would also repeal the Affordable Care Act’s mandates for individuals to buy health coverage and employers to offer it and let states spell out their own insurance coverage and benefit requirements. “I’m proud to continue these efforts and make sure hardworking families who have already suffered the harmful effects of the president’s healthcare law will not be further penalized if the Supreme Court rules against the administration,” Isakson said in a statement…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-keep-obamacare-subsidies-two-more-years/article/2563449?custom_click=rss
Health Plans’ Mastery of Obamacare Poses Challenge To Repeal
“Can Obamacare still be repealed? Well, that depends. If the politicians will legislate according to the people’s preferences, Obamacare is a jump-ball. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest tracking poll, 43 percent have a generally favorable opinion of Obamacare, while 42 percent have a generally unfavorable opinion. Further, 22 percent claim Obamacare has hurt them or their family directly, while only 19 percent claim it has helped. That leaves more than half who do not think Obamacare has directly affected them. Perhaps the 25 million who have become insured or dependent on Medicaid after Obamacare rolled out will confirm its success. Actually, there has been no improvement in access to care due to Obamacare. The Commonwealth Fund reports that 35 percent of adults delayed medical care because of cost last year – versus 37 percent in 2005. Further, the proportion of adults ages 19 through 64 who had a medical problem but did not visit a doctor or clinic was 22 percent in 2003 and 23 percent last year. Thirteen percent did not receive needed specialist care last year – the same percentage as in 2003. Basically, when it comes to access to care, Obamacare has returned us to the status quo from before the Great Recession – at great cost to taxpayers. And that is only the picture in broad strokes. Very few people account for most medical spending, and those very sick people are doing poorly in Obamacare plans. A politician who offers a compelling plan to restore prosperity, as well as repealing and replacing Obamacare, should not face overwhelming odds convincing Obamacare beneficiaries. The real obstacle to advancing an alternative to Obamacare will be interests in the health sector, which has mastered Obamacare remarkably. The latest evidence is the first quarter earnings reported by UnitedHealth Group UNH -1.51% (NYSE:UNH) and Hospital Corporation of America (NYSE:HCA), both of which Forbes colleague Bruce Japsen describes as having had the “best Obamacare quarter yet.” UnitedHealth Group posted revenues of $36 billion, 13 percent more than Q1 2014. The stock jumped 3.6 percent on the news. Every part of the firm’s domestic business did better than expected: Medicaid, Medicare, employer-based benefits and Obamacare exchanges….”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/04/22/health-plans-mastery-of-obamacare-poses-challenge-to-repeal/
Why are Obamacare’s polling numbers so low?
“The Kaiser Family Foundation released a poll Tuesday showing that public opinion is divided on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Forty-three percent of respondents reported that they approve of the health-care law, and 42 percent said they disapprove. That’s a marked improvement from much of the last year. But those of us who believe that the ACA is decent policy that’s working fairly well still need to ask: Why do its polling numbers remain so low? At least part of the answer is that the ACA’s primary purpose was to cover people who had severe trouble affording insurance, and most Americans didn’t have this problem. The ACA is at its core a coverage-expansion policy. It enlarged Medicaid and designed special marketplaces to give people who had limited or no access to private health coverage the ability to get quality insurance. That class of people included low-income Americans and uninsured or under-insured Americans with expensive preexisting conditions. Most people weren’t in those categories. According to polling numbers Gallup reported in January, the rate of uninsured peaked in 2013 at 18 percent, meaning 82 percent of Americans had coverage before the law fully phased in, and most got it in fairly stable “large group” plans, often from their employers, or in preexisting federal health-care programs. Yes, the ACA has a variety of provisions meant to help people who had insurance before the law. It requires insurers to allow children to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26. It is supposed to promote competition and price control among insurers in new, well-functioning health-care markets that can’t turn people away. Among other things, that will make people feel more comfortable buying insurance on their own, which enables them to leave jobs they kept merely for the health-care benefits. The law also requires a minimum level of quality among health-care plans, which helps some of the previously insured as well as the newly insured. Programs that punish preventable hospital re-admissions and promote better hospital care, meanwhile, are showing promise driving down medical mistakes….”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/04/22/why-are-obamacares-polling-numbers-so-low/?wprss=rss_homepage
Doctor Pay: Still Confusing and Unequal
A new survey of physicians details data on pay by specialty, state and gender.
“Untangling the complicated web that is physician payment is one of the problems confronting the Affordable Care Act. The Obama administration is aiming under the law to tackle the way doctors are paid and to reimburse them based on the quality of care provided to patients, rather than by the number of services provided – many of which often do not increase patient health. A recent bill passed by Congress, lauded as one of the most significant examples of bipartisanship by lawmakers in recent years, also provided a fix for the current Medicare payment formula. Leaders in the House worked behind-the-scenes to negotiate the solution, after 17 short-term patches had been passed since 2003. In a new Medscape survey of 19,500 physicians in 25 specialties, it’s clear there are still issues to solve, including pay gaps by gender and differences in income between areas with a high cost of living and poor and rural areas, where the demand for health care is high. One takeaway: 64 percent of physicians with a private practice and 79 percent of other physicians said they would continue taking both new and current Medicare and Medicaid patients. Critics feared that cutting payment amounts for procedures would mean doctors would take fewer of those patients. In terms of income, primary care physicians still make less on average than specialists: PCPs make $195,000 and specialty physicians make $284,000 – figures that can include salary, bonuses and profit-sharing. PCPs earn an average lifetime income of about $6.5 million compared with $10 million for specialists, according to a 2009 study. This pay difference is one factor that has led to a primary care shortage in the U.S. Nationwide, only 60 percent of the need for PCPs has been met; in order for all needs to be met, we need 8,000 more PCPs, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation…”
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/04/22/amid-obamacare-changes-doctor-pay-still-confusing-unequal
Surgeon General Calls Health Care a Civil Rights Issue
“Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared health care a right, decrying unequal access a problem even after the passage of Obamacare. “To put it simply, health equity is a civil rights issue,” Murthy told a gathering Wednesday attending his ceremonial swearing in…”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/22/surgeon-general-calls-health-care-a-civil-rights-issue/
Obamacare, Hands Off My Medicare
“A number of factors underpin the anti-redistributionist shift in public opinion that I wrote about last week. First, and perhaps most important, is the emergence of significant resistance to downward redistribution among the elderly, a major voting bloc. The views of older voters deserve scrutiny. They “worry that redistribution will come at their expense, in particular via cuts to Medicare,” Vivekinan Ashok, a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Yale; Ilyana Kuziemko, a professor of economics at Princeton; and Ebonya Washington, a professor of economics at Yale, write in a March 2015 Brookings Institution essay, “Support for Redistribution in an Age of Rising Inequality”— an essay my Times colleague Neil Irwin also discussed in a recent column that asked why Americans don’t want to soak the rich. In the end, Ashok, Kuziemko and Washington conclude that the elderly have grown increasingly opposed to government provision of health insurance and that controlling for this tendency explains roughly half of their declining relative support of redistribution….”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/opinion/obamacare-hands-off-my-medicare.html
Palm to the head: VA manager forced underlings to pay his wife $30 for fortune telling
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/22/house-panel-hears-lost-benefits-fortune-telling-va/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
IMMIGRATION:
Census: Record 51 million immigrants in 8 years, will account for 82% of U.S. growth
“Legal and illegal immigrants will hit a record high of 51 million in just eight years and eventually account for an astounding 82 percent of all population growth in America, according to new U.S. Census figures. A report from the Center for Immigration Studies that analyzed the statistics said that by 2023, one in seven U.S. residents will be an immigrant, rising to one in five by 2060 when the immigrant population totals 78 million. The report was provided to Secrets and released Wednesday evening. The surge in immigrant population, both legal and illegal, threatens to slam into the presidential campaign as GOP candidates move to figure out what their position is and the president tries to use executive powers to exempt some 5 million illegals from deportation. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker disrupted the debate this week when he said that legal immigration also needs to be reformed to make sure Americans don’t suffer by losing jobs to new citizens. But even more, the CIS report said that the surge in mostly legal immigrants will have a huge impact on the nation and taxpayers. “These numbers have important implications for workers, schools, infrastructure, congestion and the environment,” said Steven Camarota, the center’s director of research. “They also may have implications for our ability to successfully assimilate and integrate immigrants. Yet there has been almost no national debate about bringing in so many people legally each year, which is the primary factor driving these numbers.” Those numbers are likely to shake up Washington’s political debate over the 12 million illegals in America, the expected 70,000 expected to pour over the border this year and the 4.4 million legal immigrants on a State Department waiting list who have relatives or jobs in the U.S…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/census-record-51-million-immigrants-in-8-years-will-account-for-82-of-u.s.-growth/article/2563463
ONE IN SEVEN PEOPLE IN THE U.S. WILL BE IMMIGRANTS BY 2023
“The immigrant population in the United States will hit its highest percentage ever in the next eight years, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data released Wednesday by the Center for Immigration Studies. CIS’ analysis reveals that by 2023 there will be 51 million immigrants in the U.S. and they will account for more than one in seven U.S. residents, or about 14.8 percent of the population. The report explains that, without any change in current U.S. immigration policy, legal immigration — as opposed to illegal immigration — will be the force propelling that growing immigrant population. “These numbers have important implications for workers, schools, infrastructure, congestion, and the environment,” Steven Camarota, CIS’ Director of Research, said Wednesday. According to CIS, the immigrant population will grow at a rate nearly four times faster than native-born populations. By 2030, the immigrant population will reach 57 million or 15.8 percent and by 2040 it will have grown to 65 million or 17.1 percent. Come 2060, the immigrant population will have grown to 78 million, with nearly one in five U.S. residents being immigrants. That’s about 18.8 percent of the population. The total U.S. population will also have grown to nearly 417 million…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/22/one-in-seven-people-in-the-u-s-will-be-immigrants-by-2023/
Obama Administration Admits It Granted Amnesty To Gang Member Accused Of Murdering Four
“In a shocking admission, the Obama administration says that it should not have awarded deferred deportation status to Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez, an illegal immigrant with known gang ties who stands accused of murdering four people in North Carolina, including former “America’s Top Model” contestant Mirjana Puhar. Rangel-Hernandez, 19, was granted amnesty under President Obama’s unilateral amnesty program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) director Leon Rodriguez admitted in a letter sent Friday to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Senate Judiciary Committee. Rangel-Hernandez allegedly killed Puhar and three others in Charlotte in February. In his letter, Rodriguez admitted that Rangel-Hernandez received work authorization and amnesty through DACA despite being a documented gang member…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/22/obama-administration-admits-it-granted-amnesty-to-gang-member-accused-of-murdering-four/
Gang member facing murder charges was spared deportation under Obama program
“The Obama administration has admitted that an illegal immigrant and known gang member — who recently was charged in the murders of four people — was allowed to remain in the United States under President Obama’s executive actions. Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez was allowed in August 2013 to remain in the U.S., following his request about seven months earlier to stay under the president’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Leon Rodriguez. Rodriquez acknowledged in a letter to a top Republican senator that Rangel-Hernandez’s application was approved, even though a federal crime database indicated he was a “known gang member.” “Based on the standard procedures and protocols in place at the time, the DACA request and related employment authorization should not have been approved,” said Rodriguez, in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who had raised questions about the case. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, in an interview Wednesday on Fox News, declined to address the Rangel-Hernandez case specifically — or whether illegal immigrants who engage in criminal activity are being allowed to stay in the U.S. under DACA or similar executive actions. (DACA is intended to give a deportation reprieve to some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.)…”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/22/gang-member-facing-murder-charges-was-spared-deportation-under-obama-program/
DHS confirms: Yes, the “Top Model” murder suspect was allowed to stay in the U.S. under Obama’s amnesty — despite being a gang member
“A known gang member, I should stress. His gang affiliation was already flagged in a federal database when he applied for amnesty under Obama’s 2012 DACA action for DREAMers. Immigration officials are supposed to check that database before granting the application. Emphasis on “supposed to.” Two years later, four people in North Carolina are dead, including a former contestant on “Top Model.” How was this guy allowed to stay, Chuck Grassley asked DHS? DHS’s reply: Oops…. The Background Check Unit should have noticed the TECS record and denied Rangel-Hernandez’s amnesty petition. It didn’t, for reasons that are unclear. According to CIS, 49 people out of the more than 886,000 cases approved for DACA relief were either known gang members when they applied or their affiliation became known during or after their applications were approved. Those cases are now under review. Just last month, ICE conducted a national sweep and arrested 15 more especially dangerous illegals who were permitted to stay in the U.S. under DACA despite having been convicted of a crime at least once. Whether all of those 15 are among the 49 noted by DHS is unclear, but it seems likely: Chuck Grassley first started making noise about Rangel-Hernandez and DACA in late February, after he was charged with the “Top Model” murder. That was ICE’s cue to hit the streets in March and round up any other future murderers they might have greenlit for amnesty. Another case like this and the political heat on Obama and DACA will turn way up…”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/22/dhs-confirms-yes-the-top-model-murder-suspect-was-allowed-to-stay-in-the-u-s-under-obamas-amnesty-despite-being-a-gang-member/
Gang member facing murder charges was spared deportation under Obama program
“The Obama administration has admitted that an illegal immigrant and known gang member — who recently was charged in the murders of four people — was allowed to remain in the United States under President Obama’s executive actions. Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez was allowed in August 2013 to remain in the U.S., following his request about seven months earlier to stay under the president’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Leon Rodriguez. Rodriquez acknowledged in a letter to a top Republican senator that Rangel-Hernandez’s application was approved, even though a federal crime database indicated he was a “known gang member.” “Based on the standard procedures and protocols in place at the time, the DACA request and related employment authorization should not have been approved,” said Rodriguez, in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who had raised questions about the case. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, in an interview Wednesday on Fox News, declined to address the Rangel-Hernandez case specifically — or whether illegal immigrants who engage in criminal activity are being allowed to stay in the U.S. under DACA or similar executive actions. (DACA is intended to give a deportation reprieve to some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.)…”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/22/gang-member-facing-murder-charges-was-spared-deportation-under-obama-program/
Small business: visa quotas hinder finding skilled help
“Some small business owners say government quotas are keeping them from finding the highly skilled help they need. H-1B visas allow foreigners with college degrees to work in the U.S. for up to six years. There’s such high demand for employees adept in technology and other skilled fields that nearly two-thirds of the applications will be denied. Congress set a limit of 65,000 for visas for workers with bachelor’s degrees, and 20,000 for those with master’s degrees. “There is not really an abundant supply of the types of folks we’re looking for, with a science, technology, engineering and mathematics background,” says Anand Sanwal, CEO of CB Insights, a New York-based company that compiles information about private firms. He’s waiting to hear if visas for three job candidates will be approved. Thousands of small business owners are waiting to see if their job candidates are among the 85,000 who get H-1B visas this year. If the government rejects their applications, owners have to keep trying to find workers with the right skills, many of them in technology. While many companies complain about a shortage of skilled workers in the U.S., small businesses struggle in particular because many talented people are recruited by big companies or start their own, says Phillip Kim, a professor of entrepreneurship at Babson College. Jacob Tanur believes the government’s 2014 rejection of an application for a prospective worker’s visa limited his film production company’s ability to grow. Click Play Films makes commercials, documentaries and corporate films, and Tanur wants a multicultural mix of cinematographers and other creative staffers who understand the needs of clients in other countries. “It makes us extremely attractive to advertising agencies,” says Tanur, whose New York-based company has 10 staffers. Four have H-1B visas. “What’s cool in China is not something that we can artificially create here.”…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/22/small-business-visa-quotas-hinder-finding-skilled-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
TPP Equals Mass Immigration
“Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement, Congress could lose the power to restrict immigration. We could find ourselves back in the era before the 1920s when there were no restrictions on immigration and anyone from anywhere could come to our shores. And Republicans, from Mitch McConnell and John Boehner on down, are unwittingly helping Obama achieve this goal. The TPP, generally supported by pro-free trade Republicans but opposed by labor union Democrats, contains a barely noticed provision that allows for the free migration of labor among the signatory nations. Patterned after similar provisions in the treaties establishing the European Union, it would override national immigration restrictions in the name of facilitating free flow of labor. The draft treaty, now under discussion among 11 Pacific Rim nations — including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and Japan — makes provision for needed labor to move across national boundaries without restraint. While much of the commentary on the deal has been focused on high-skill, white-collar migration, it could easily be interpreted as allowing farm workers and others to flow back and forth without legal regulation. In seeking approval of the TPP, the Obama administration has proposed giving it fast track authority to conclude trade deals — a power which would restrict Congress’ ability to amend the deal and force an up or down vote. Led by Republicans, the Senate is moving toward passage of fast track as a precursor to ratification of the TPP treaty, immigration provisions and all. Democrats and unions are staging a last-ditch stand against the bill, which their labor allies condemn as the worst trade deal since NAFTA, pointing to the potential loss of jobs. But Republicans are using their majorities to grant Obama fast track authority. It is odd, indeed, to see Republicans falling all over themselves to reward this president with more power, voluntarily reducing Congressional oversight and increasing executive authority. At the very least, one would assume that TPP would give the GOP bargaining power to force Obama to backtrack on amnesty for people immigrating illegally and possibly on Obamacare. But far from forcing concessions, Republicans are lining up in support of fast track and, by implication, TPP. Because foreign treaties are the “law of the land” according to the U.S. Constitution, any provision governing our borders and the flow of immigrants could not be overridden or even modified by the Congress. A new, Republican, president would be able to reverse Obama’s amnesty plan, but not the open-border provisions of the TPP. The treaty could lead to the effective repeal of the specifically enumerated power granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration and naturalization. While the treaty is still being negotiated, the current focus on white-collar immigration be sufficiently elastic to allow open borders. What is white collar vs. blue collar? Are we going to set an income limit on immigration? Curtis Ellis, executive director of the American Jobs Alliance calls the trade deal “a Trojan horse for Obama’s immigration agenda.” He notes that “one corporate trade association says bluntly that ‘The TPP should remove restrictions on nationality or residency requirements for the selection of personnel.'” In his seventh and eighth year, every president worries about his legacy and tries to control events in the future. But here Obama is enshrining in a treaty — that cannot be repealed or amended — an open-border immigration policy for all time. Those who say that he would never carry the treaty’s provisions that far have only to ask themselves the question: Would Obama extend his powers to their maximum limit? Of course he would. Don’t give him the power.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/22/tpp_equals_mass_immigration_126347.html
Dick Morris: Fast Track could lead to unlimited immigration
“The Senate Finance Committee is expected to vote today to give President Obama “Fast Track” authority to negotiate trade treaties without congressional amendment. The bill would then come to the full Senate for a possible vote. Dick Morris is warning Republicans against giving Obama Fast Track power, partly because Obama could use it to destroy America’s future border controls. Morris warns: “The current Pacific Rim agreement, which would include Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam — Pacific Rim countries (at the moment not China, but eventually it will) — provides that there should be free flow of labor among the signatories, just like in the European Union. What this means is that Congress can no longer control Mexican immigration into the United States, or Central American immigration, because any law that congress passes, quota-ing or limiting the number of people who can come in legally is superseded by treaty under the Constitution, and this treaty requirement of free flow of labor would vitiate any attempt by Congress to regulate immigration. Morris also points out that giving Obama unbridled Fast Track authority could lead to trade treaties that permit cheating. Morris continues: As long as we’re doing free trade, let’s include prohibitions against manipulation of currency for trade advantage, like China is doing endlessly, and let’s set that precedent and build that in as a requirement for fast track on any free trade duty…”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/dick_morris_fast_track_could_lead_to_unlimited_immigration.html
Media Ignores Evidence Americans Want To REDUCE Legal Immigration
“Media outlets scoffed at Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker this week for his stated view that immigration policy should prioritize the needs of American workers, ignoring polls that consistently show otherwise to insist his position will alienate most voters. “How much worse can Republicans make matters [with immigrants and hispanics]?” asked MSNBC. “The party’s 2016 candidates can do the one thing Romney didn’t: go after legal immigration.” We have remarked that the temptation in the GOP primary is to play to the loudest voices and the staunchest segment of the party, even though they do not represent a majority of voters in the party, let alone in the general electorate,” wrote Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin. Walker said Monday immigration policy should center around the needs of American jobs and wages, calling their needs “a fundamentally lost issue” to politicians…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/22/media-ignores-evidence-americans-want-to-reduce-legal-immigration/
Department of Homeland Security says flood of migrant kids is slowing
“The flood of Mexican and Central American children trying to illegally cross without their parents or guardians into the U.S. appears to be slowing significantly, at least for this year, a top Department of Homeland Security official told Congress Wednesday. “I’m confident at this point based on where we are halfway through this year that we will not see the level of unaccompanied children…that we saw last year,” Michael Fisher, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
Story Continued Below Thousands of children flowing over the southwestern U.S. border has been a driving force in recent immigration politics, complicating the Obama administration’s strategy last year for rolling out controversial executive actions and also drawing sharp lines over whether to immediately send the minors into deportation proceedings. Since 2012, extreme poverty and violence in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico has prompted a surge of children trying to enter the U.S. at the southwestern border. Last fiscal year, the Border Patrol encountered 67,339 children from just those four countries, a nearly 44 percent increase from 2013…”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/department-of-homeland-security-says-flood-of-migrant-kids-is-slowing-117252.html
Top immigration officials say summer won’t see surge in kids
“There won’t be nearly as many immigrant children who cross the border on their own this summer as there were last year, top officials say. Daniel Ragsdale, deputy director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said authorities expect far fewer migrant children and families than the influx last year that gained worldwide attention and left Border Patrol agents unable to process so many people. “I’m happy to say all the work we’ve done last year is bearing fruit,” Ragsdale said. Ronald D. Vitiello, the Border Patrol’s deputy chief, agreed. “This year is far better off than last year,” he said. Vitiello and Ragsdale made the remarks Wednesday at the Border Security Expo in Phoenix. Authorities were overwhelmed last year with an influx of unaccompanied minors and families with children last year. More than 68,000 youths from mostly Central America crossed the border without a parent last fiscal year…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/22/top-immigration-officials-say-summer-wont-see-surg/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Arizona sheriff set to testify Thursday at contempt hearing
“An Arizona sheriff known for cracking down on illegal immigration has been scheduled to testify at a contempt-of-court hearing for disobeying court orders in a racial profiling case. A judge set the testimony of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for Thursday in the case marking the boldest attempt yet to hold the normally defiant sheriff personally responsible for his actions. On Tuesday, a supervisor with Arpaio’s now-disbanded smuggling squad offered a tough critique of the sheriff, blaming Arpaio for ignoring the 2011 orders and describing the famed lawman as being driven by a need for publicity. The former leader of the immigration enforcement unit that helped elevate Arpaio’s national profile is expected to testify Wednesday. The hearing was convened over Arpaio’s acknowledged violations of three orders in the profiling case, including disobeying a 2011 injunction that barred him from conducting immigration enforcement patrols. Rank-and-file officers who were never told about the ruling violated the order for about 18 months. The sheriff also has accepted responsibility for his agency’s failure to turn over traffic-stop videos and bungling a plan to gather such recordings from officers once some videos were discovered. Arpaio made the acknowledgments in an unsuccessful bid to get the hearing called off…”
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Contempt-of-court-hearing-for-Arpaio-enters-its-6215809.php
ACLU sues feds in bid to make Catholic groups provide abortion to illegal immigrants
“Providing food and shelter to illegal immigrants isn’t enough for federally-funded Catholic organizations, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is suing the federal government to help ensure the religious organizations provide abortion and contraception to them as well. The suit aims to obtain government records related to reproductive healthcare policy for unaccompanied immigrant children in the care of federally funded Catholic agencies, which do not believe in abortion. “We have heard reports that Catholic bishops are prohibiting Catholic charities from allowing teens in their care to access critical services like contraception and abortion- even if the teenager has been raped on her journey to the United States or in a detention facility,” said ACLU staff attorney Brigitte Amiri…”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/22/aclu-sues-feds-in-bid-to-make-catholic-groups-provide-abortion-to-illegal/
Undocumented immigrants paid nearly $12 billion in taxes, study claims
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2015/04/22/undocumented-immigrants-paid-nearly-12-billion-in-taxes-study-claims/
Women, Black Groups Mark 5 Years of Arizona Immigration Law
“For organizers like Celeste Faison, the fight for civil rights isn’t limited to the U.S.-born black community. It also extends to immigrants who experience hardships caused by what she sees as the nation’s broken immigration system. “Our struggles are not necessarily the same in every aspect, but our experiences are similar,” said Faison, who is the black organizing coordinator for the National Domestic Workers Alliance. Faison was among the group of women who traveled to Arizona on Wednesday to discuss how immigrants in Arizona – especially women – are affected by immigration laws, including the state’s controversial SB 1070. The trip came on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the signing of SB 1070, which allows police officers to question the immigration status of individuals who they believe are in the country illegally. The law was challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck many of its provisions, but upheld the provision on questioning individuals about their status when reasonable suspicion exists, which some referred to as the “Show Me Your Papers” provision. They visited Tent City, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio houses immigrants awaiting possible deportation. They also stopped at an immigration detention center before traveling to Tucson where they witnessed how a federal court processes up to 70 people per day with criminal immigration-related charges. They also planned to cross the border to Mexico to meet people who were recently deported…”
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/women-black-groups-mark-5-years-arizona-immigration-law-n346471
The killer question of immigration reform
“A number of Republican 2016 presidential candidates are heading for a difficult moment on the issue of immigration reform. Here is how it will work:
1) It is commonplace among Republicans along the spectrum of opinion on the issue to say that the United States is not going to deport all 11 or 12 million immigrants currently in the country illegally. What that generally means is the United States is not going to deport any of those immigrants, barring some who have been convicted of multiple serious crimes.
2) It is becoming more common for Republicans to say that immigration reform has to be enacted in pieces and sequentially. That means that new security measures — the main ones are enhanced border security, the E-Verify system to identify employees working illegally, and the visa entry-exit system to stop visa overstays — those systems have to be not only passed into law, not only funded, but actually be implemented and up and running before lawmakers consider the status of the 11 or 12 million.
That leads to 3) If those new security measures are implemented, they will work. What then? Better border security would not be a problem for the millions currently here illegally; it would just prevent new illegal immigrants from entering the country. Entry-exit would also not be a problem for those already here; it would begin to track people entering the country and force them to leave at the point in the future when their legal permission to stay in the United States ends.
But what about E-Verify? If businesses were actually required to ascertain the legal status of their employees, those businesses would certainly identify millions of workers holding jobs in the United States illegally. What would happen to them? Candidates have already pledged that there will be no mass deportations of illegal immigrants who have not been convicted of multiple serious crimes. If they deport people identified by E-Verify, they’re breaking that pledge. And if they don’t, they’re enacting the type of “amnesty” they also promised to avoid. On Tuesday evening, I posed the “what then” question to a key Republican, one who has thought a lot about immigration. His response was essentially that there are some questions that need not be answered right now, and this is one of them…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-killer-question-of-immigration-reform/article/2563416?custom_click=rss
Marco Rubio and like-minded Republicans ‘opened the floodgates’ on immigration: GOP Rep.
“Rep. Mo Brooks, Alabama Republican, said Republicans like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida led efforts to “open the floodgates” on immigration because of their support for a comprehensive 2013 bill that would have provided a pathway to citizenship for most of the approximately 11 million illegal immigrants in the country. Mr. Brooks said that, coupled with the number of illegal immigrants that could be granted legalization through the bill and the increase in the number of lawful immigrants, “over a 10-year period of time, the number of foreigners who would be either legalized because they’re already here or would be allowed to come into the United States of America would be anywhere in the neighborhood of 44 to 57 million.” “Now, I’m from the state of Alabama – that’s the equivalent of nine to 11 state of Alabama populations brought into America or legalized in America over a short, 10-year period of time – that’s a huge change,” Mr. Brooks said on Tim Constantine’s Capitol Hill Show on The Washington Times radio…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/22/marco-rubio-led-effort-open-floodgates-immigration/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
On Immigration, Walker Bucks the Beltway Consensus
The Republican party should welcome his call for a closer examination of evidence.
“Scott Walker’s most recent comments on immigration may make possible an honest-to-God debate about America’s immigration policy. It’s about time. Chatting with Glenn Beck on Monday morning, Walker said: The next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal-immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, protecting American workers and American wages. . . . What is [current legal immigration policy] doing for American workers? What is this doing to wages? We need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward. But, Walker observed, among elected officials, questioning our currently legal immigration policy is “a fundamentally lost issue.” And Republicans quickly proved him right. Utah senator Orrin Hatch dismissed as “poppycock” Walker’s insinuation that high levels of legal immigration might have negative effects on employment and wages. Arizona senator John McCain declared that immigrants were necessary to supplement an aging population: “I think most statistics show that they fill part of the workforce that are much needed.” South Dakota senator John Thune, head of the Senate Republican Conference, admitting that he had not heard Walker’s comments exactly, still declared: “We have a workforce issue in this country. . . . So having a robust legal-immigration process helps us fill jobs that otherwise wouldn’t be getting filled.” And Ohio senator Rob Portman retreated to sentiment: ““As a party, we’ve always embraced immigrants coming here legally, following the rules. And it’s enriched our country immeasurably.”…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417308/immigration-walker-bucks-beltway-consensus-ian-tuttle
Reminder: Polls show public support for Scott Walker’s position on legal immigration
“Not always majority support, granted, but Ramesh Ponnuru reminds us there’s a sizable chunk of voters out there who are open to reducing legal as well as illegal immigration. Given widespread paranoia among top Republicans about losing Latinos forever over grassroots opposition to amnesty, Walker moving to Mitt Romney’s right by questioning legal immigration seems counterintuitive and politically dangerous. But is it? Per Ponnuru, hmmmm: (chart) Interesting, but maybe that 39 percent opposition is driven almost entirely by Republicans, people whom Walker can already count on to support him as nominee, in which case his legal immigration position isn’t winning him any new votes. Look back a bit further to another Gallup poll from last year, though, and you’ll see that’s not true: (chart) Even among indies, a strong plurality of 43 percent wants immigration decreased. At a minimum, 74 percent of American adults don’t want to see immigration increase, putting them squarely at odds with a lefty base that’s forever clamoring for amnesty. Go back another year, to 2013, and you’ll find even stronger opposition to legal immigration via a Fox News poll:…”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/22/reminder-polls-show-public-support-for-scott-walkers-position-on-legal-immigration/
Reporting on Walker on Immigration
“Walker and his spokespeople have not been crystal clear on this subject, so confused reporting is not entirely reporters’ fault. Nevertheless, there are a few things journalists should keep in mind on this topic: 1) Walker has not actually said that he wants to reduce the number of legal immigrants coming to the United States. 2) Before writing that Walker “supports limits on legal immigration,” try to think of a politician who doesn’t. 3) “Anti-immigration” and ”against legal immigration” are not neutral descriptions of the view that legal immigration levels should be lower. 4) Before calling advocacy of lower levels of legal immigration a “far-right” position, look at the polls that show around 39 percent of the public holds that position. Maybe even note that in your story, along with the fact that smaller percentages of the public want the higher legal immigration levels that “comprehensive immigration reform” entails.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/417294/reporting-walker-immigration-ramesh-ponnuru
Scott Walker Backed EB-5 Visas for Rich Chinese Immigrants
“As governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker was a supporter of a company that helps wealthy Chinese citizens immigrate to the the United States. This revelation stands in contrast to his recent statement that legal immigration policy should be based on “protecting American workers and American wages.” Not only did Walker previously support so-called “amnesty” (which some argue would be a magnet drawing more illegals) — but as governor, he “has been a long time friend” of a company based in Beijing and Milwaukee that “helps foreign investors become United States Citizens through the Department of Homeland Security Immigrant Investor (EB-5) program.” This is the same program that Hillary brother and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe appear to have gamed. According to the company’s website, “The partnership provides an investment vehicle that qualifies investors for a Green Card and Citizenship, if so desired. The investment is a $500,000 minimum required program, targeted toward high net worth individuals who understand and appreciate the convenience and timeliness created by participating in a carefully designed program.”…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/22/scott-walker-backed-eb-5-visas-for-rich-chinese-immigrants/
Scott Walker, the media and “anti-immigration” rhetoric
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/22/scott-walker-the-media-and-anti-immigration-rhetoric/
CONSERVATIVE LEADERS RALLY BEHIND WALKER’S POPULIST IMMIGRATION PLATFORM
“While seemingly the entire political establishment—from the Institutional Left to the mainstream media to even some establishment Republicans—have their long knives out for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker over his new pro-American-worker immigration position, the cavalry has arrived to defend him. Phyllis Schlafly, the longtime grassroots conservative activist who personally took on the leftist Equal Rights Amendment and has fought against the political establishment from a populist perspective for more than half a century, told Breitbart News she’s pleased with Walker’s new strong stance in favor of American workers. “I’m thrilled to see that Scott Walker wants to defend American jobs and understands that American voters are directly impacted by immigration — both illegal and