男孩因为偷看电视救了一家人的命# MiddleSchool - 中学时代
f*8
1 楼
我觉着等国会复会后会有一场很大的immigration debate. 即使移民团体不推动，像
NUMEBERSUSA这种势力强大的anti-immigration group也会强力推动的, 因为这些anti
所一直依赖的attrition through enforcement的政策随着奥巴马的新政策而瓦解。
让我们拭目以待他们狗咬狗。
****************************************************************************
****
Does Pres. Obama's new amnesty attempt mean E-Verify bill wouldn't work?
By Roy Beck, Thursday, August 25, 2011, 7:20 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA
Has Pres. Obama convinced ANTI-amnesty activists to give up on keeping
illegal aliens from holding jobs?
A lot of anti-amnesty people are suggesting just that.
They say they are so discouraged by the Obama Administration announcement
that it will cease deportations for most non-violent illegal aliens that
they are giving up on a national E-Verify bill.
Well, we at NumbersUSA don't give up so easily and we aren't about to
fulfill Mr. Obama's wildest pro-illegal-worker wishes by stopping our all-
out push for a mandatory E-Verify law. The PRO-amnesty people would like
nothing better than for NumbersUSA's citizen army to become dispirited and
back away from mandatory E-Verify just before it is about to pass the U.S.
House.
Here is what some of our ANTI-amnesty activist friends are saying:
1. Because Pres. Obama won't deport people already ordered deported . . .
2. . . . it shows that it doesn't matter what Congress passes as a law,
since Pres. Obama won't obey the law any way.
3. . . . And passing a national mandatory E-Verify law to keep illegal
aliens from holding U.S. jobs won't do any good because Pres. Obama will
have given all the illegal aliens work permits that will get them through
the E-Verify screening process.
4. . . . Thus, these particular anti-amnesty advocates are saying, they
have no interest in any longer pushing for the mandatory E-Verify law that
our anti-illegal-immigration movement has had as a top priority for two
decades (even though we have the best chance since 1996 to pass the
legislation this fall).
Here is what is wrong about that line of thinking and about giving up on
mandatory E-Verify:
First, I want to emphasize that I understand how many of you might at first
wonder about these things, consider them to be logical and ask me why they
shouldn't be considered true. I thank you for raising them. If my
responses below seem too strong, it is not out of any frustration with you
but because the stakes are so high in seeing why the line of assertions
above are not valid.
Let's consider the key points of the above defeatist argument one by one:
Assertion No. 1: Because Pres. Obama won't deport people already ordered
deported . . .
TRUE.
It was announced last week by the President's West Wing official who
formerly was a long-time lobbyist for the National Council of La Raza. Even
though some 300,000 people have been caught, detained, tried and ordered to
be deported, the announcement said, the Administration will give "Deferred
Action" to most of them if they haven't been convicted of a violent felony.
Deferred Action allows an illegal alien to remain legally present in the U.
S. temporarily, and can be renewed.
Assertion No. 2: . . . . it shows that it doesn't matter what Congress
passes as a law, since Pres. Obama won't obey the law any way.
NOT REALLY.
First, it is key to understand that the Constitution gives the power to set
immigration policy to Congress. The only power a President has in
immigration policy is a power given to him by Congress.
In this case, Congress for some time has given a President the right to give
out Deferred Action status to illegal aliens on a case-by-case basis. Thus
, in basing his new policy on Deferred Action, Pres. Obama is operating in
an area where Congress has indeed given him wide discretion.
Until we see how he gives out this status under his new policy and in what
quantity, we cannot technically say that Pres. Obama is violating
immigration laws. His announcement certainly sounds like he is bending the
allowed discretion beyond Congress' intention. What I have contended in
numerous media interviews is that Deferred Action by itself will be a major
challenge as to whether the President is over-stepping his authority if he
gives it out by the tens of thousands and especially if he gives out work
permits at the same time.
It will be one thing to claim prosecutorial discretion to decide to deport
one set of illegal aliens instead of another set while claiming limited
funds that prevent deporting all.
But the granting of mass work permits would not be a matter of prosecutorial
discretion. That would be a matter of giving illegal aliens the main thing
they broke immigration laws to obtain -- U.S. jobs -- and would directly
victimize unemployed Americans. After Congress has repeatedly voted against
amnesties -- and giving work permits to illegal aliens -- the last half-
decade, the granting of a "jobs amnesty" would be a direct violation by the
President of the wishes of Congress.
My point here is that Pres. Obama is trying to operate in a part of
immigration law in which Congress has given Presidents some discretion. He
does NOT appear to be -- as yet, anyway -- directly violating a specific
mandate from Congress. Congressional oversight hearings may find otherwise,
and I hope that they will begin immediately in September.
A mandatory E-Verify law, however, would be quite different. It would NOT
give the President any discretion in setting up a computer system to track
any employer that fails to use E-Verify in screening new workers.
Such a law would NOT give the President any discretion in the computer
system sending out "No-Match Letters" to employers about existing workers
who have mismatched or fictitious Social Security numbers, and ordering the
firing of the workers who can't resolve the issue.
I have no doubt that if Congress passes a mandatory E-Verify law that Pres.
Obama will see that these systems are set up and put in operation.
Would he aggressively fine and jail employers who don't comply? That is
where discretion will enter. We know that Pres. Obama rarely suppports
enforcing the law against illegal aliens. But he has shown quite a lot of
interest and activity in enforcing the law against U.S. citizens who break
immigration laws as business owners. So, I am hopeful that Pres. Obama
would at least be moderately strong in taking business E-Verify violators to
court.
The most important thing here is that once Congress makes it just as illegal
to NOT use E-Verify as it is illegal to NOT withhold Social Security taxes
on a worker, nearly all employers will comply with the law. Most of the
compliance with an E-Verify law will happen voluntarily (just as compliance
with Social Security withholding).
Unlike in the area of deportations that depend almost entirely on daily
positive actions by the Administration, a mandatory E-Verify law doesn't
depend on that kind of direct federal enforcement.
To summarize on Argument No. 2:
•It DOES matter what laws Congress passes. If it passes laws giving
discretion to Pres. Obama, he has proven that he will bend that law as far
as possible to favor illegal foreign workers over unemployed Americans.
•But if Congress passes laws with direct orders and without discretion
, we do not have an indication that Pres. Obama would set himself up for an
impeachment trial by simply disregarding such an immigration law. (I repeat
that I do not believe that Pres. Obama would directly violate such a
congressional mandate. But even if you think he would, why not pass a
mandatory E-Verify law and just dare him to ignore it and prove he deserves
impeachment.)
Assertion No. 3: . . . . And passing a national mandatory E-Verify law to
keep illegal aliens from holding U.S. jobs won't do any good because Pres.
Obama will have given all the illegal aliens work permits that will get them
through the E-Verify screening process.
NOT TRUE -- most illegal aliens would still NOT have work permits even under
the worst application of the new Obama policy.
At the moment, the new Administration policy on Deferred Action and
potential work permits is not about ALL millions of illegal aliens but about
the 300,000 who have been ordered deported.
Thus, a mandatory E-Verify law would still get at most of the illegal aliens
now holding jobs or seeking jobs. Because they would NOT have been given
Deferred Action and work permits.
Furthermore, I believe that NumbersUSA and like-minded citizens are going to
stir up so much opposition and outrage to Mr. Obama's new policy -- and
sufficient leaders in Congress will join the protest -- that Pres. Obama
will back down and limit his "presence" amnesty somewhat and limit any "jobs
amnesty" to no more than a few thousand illegal aliens (rather than
HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of illegal aliens). That mobilized outrage is
underway right now as we are delivering more than 10,000 protest faxes a day
into the White House from American voters.
NumbersUSA has come under some criticism from anti-amnesty activists for not
being as aggressive in our public statements about Pres. Obama's new policy
as have some other groups.
But regardless of how each of us may TALK, no group has actually DONE more
to fight this policy than NumbersUSA which began processing tens of
thousands of protest faxes to Congress and the President within a few hours
of the White House announcement of the new policy last week. In fact,
NumbersUSA months ago was the first group to alert the nation to the
internal Administration memos that indicated this policy was coming. Since
then, we have processed hundreds of thousands of faxes and driven thousands
of phone calls in protest.
Yes, NumbersUSA will always be very careful about facts, about nuance and
about practical strategies that achieve real, tangible improvements for the
American people. That means our rhetoric may sometimes be tamer than some
activists prefer. But you can count on us to not overstate or mislead just
to win a point.
One of the practical principles that we always adhere to here is that we don
't insist on 100% results for every action. Even if a mandatory E-Verify
law would only be 80% as effective or even 50% as effective because of Obama
Administration subversion, we believe that such a law should be passed
because it still would result in millions of Americans having a job who
otherwise would not.
Assertion No. 4: . . . . Thus, these particular anti-amnesty advocates are
saying, they have no interest in any longer pushing for the mandatory E-
Verify law that our anti-illegal-immigration movement has had as a top
priority for two decades (even though we have the best chance since 1996 to
pass the legislation this fall).
EXACTLY HOW THE PRO-AMNESTY CROWD HOPED WE WOULD RESPOND.
For those of you who are considering this course of action, I want you to
imagine this scenario:
•For most of the year, PRO-amnesty leaders have lamented that chances
of amnesty had dwindled to nothing and that the only immigration action
likely out of Congress this year would be an E-Verify law that would drive
millions of illegal aliens out of payroll jobs.
•Those PRO-amnesty leaders by July were in despair that nothing was
going to stop House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith from driving his E-Verify
bill through the House.
•Imagine those PRO-amnesty leaders trying to think of a way to detour
and re-channel all of the anti-illegal-worker energies that were driving the
E-Verify push. Imagine them trying to find a way to put us on the
defensive so we would abandon the thing the PRO-amnesty people fear the most
-- mandatory national E-Verify.
Well, it looks like Pres. Obama's new Deferred Action plan threatens to pull
off a political miracle for the PRO-amnesty side.
If our citizen army and our allies in Congress focus this fall primarily on
knocking down the new Obama policy and lose this golden opportunity to pass
a national mandatory E-Verify law, then we all will have cooperated as co-
conspirators with the PRO-amnesty crowd for them to achieve a pro-illegal-
immigration victory beyond their wildest dreams.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only
if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide
proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where
our blogs may be republished or reposted.
NUMEBERSUSA这种势力强大的anti-immigration group也会强力推动的, 因为这些anti
所一直依赖的attrition through enforcement的政策随着奥巴马的新政策而瓦解。
让我们拭目以待他们狗咬狗。
****************************************************************************
****
Does Pres. Obama's new amnesty attempt mean E-Verify bill wouldn't work?
By Roy Beck, Thursday, August 25, 2011, 7:20 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA
Has Pres. Obama convinced ANTI-amnesty activists to give up on keeping
illegal aliens from holding jobs?
A lot of anti-amnesty people are suggesting just that.
They say they are so discouraged by the Obama Administration announcement
that it will cease deportations for most non-violent illegal aliens that
they are giving up on a national E-Verify bill.
Well, we at NumbersUSA don't give up so easily and we aren't about to
fulfill Mr. Obama's wildest pro-illegal-worker wishes by stopping our all-
out push for a mandatory E-Verify law. The PRO-amnesty people would like
nothing better than for NumbersUSA's citizen army to become dispirited and
back away from mandatory E-Verify just before it is about to pass the U.S.
House.
Here is what some of our ANTI-amnesty activist friends are saying:
1. Because Pres. Obama won't deport people already ordered deported . . .
2. . . . it shows that it doesn't matter what Congress passes as a law,
since Pres. Obama won't obey the law any way.
3. . . . And passing a national mandatory E-Verify law to keep illegal
aliens from holding U.S. jobs won't do any good because Pres. Obama will
have given all the illegal aliens work permits that will get them through
the E-Verify screening process.
4. . . . Thus, these particular anti-amnesty advocates are saying, they
have no interest in any longer pushing for the mandatory E-Verify law that
our anti-illegal-immigration movement has had as a top priority for two
decades (even though we have the best chance since 1996 to pass the
legislation this fall).
Here is what is wrong about that line of thinking and about giving up on
mandatory E-Verify:
First, I want to emphasize that I understand how many of you might at first
wonder about these things, consider them to be logical and ask me why they
shouldn't be considered true. I thank you for raising them. If my
responses below seem too strong, it is not out of any frustration with you
but because the stakes are so high in seeing why the line of assertions
above are not valid.
Let's consider the key points of the above defeatist argument one by one:
Assertion No. 1: Because Pres. Obama won't deport people already ordered
deported . . .
TRUE.
It was announced last week by the President's West Wing official who
formerly was a long-time lobbyist for the National Council of La Raza. Even
though some 300,000 people have been caught, detained, tried and ordered to
be deported, the announcement said, the Administration will give "Deferred
Action" to most of them if they haven't been convicted of a violent felony.
Deferred Action allows an illegal alien to remain legally present in the U.
S. temporarily, and can be renewed.
Assertion No. 2: . . . . it shows that it doesn't matter what Congress
passes as a law, since Pres. Obama won't obey the law any way.
NOT REALLY.
First, it is key to understand that the Constitution gives the power to set
immigration policy to Congress. The only power a President has in
immigration policy is a power given to him by Congress.
In this case, Congress for some time has given a President the right to give
out Deferred Action status to illegal aliens on a case-by-case basis. Thus
, in basing his new policy on Deferred Action, Pres. Obama is operating in
an area where Congress has indeed given him wide discretion.
Until we see how he gives out this status under his new policy and in what
quantity, we cannot technically say that Pres. Obama is violating
immigration laws. His announcement certainly sounds like he is bending the
allowed discretion beyond Congress' intention. What I have contended in
numerous media interviews is that Deferred Action by itself will be a major
challenge as to whether the President is over-stepping his authority if he
gives it out by the tens of thousands and especially if he gives out work
permits at the same time.
It will be one thing to claim prosecutorial discretion to decide to deport
one set of illegal aliens instead of another set while claiming limited
funds that prevent deporting all.
But the granting of mass work permits would not be a matter of prosecutorial
discretion. That would be a matter of giving illegal aliens the main thing
they broke immigration laws to obtain -- U.S. jobs -- and would directly
victimize unemployed Americans. After Congress has repeatedly voted against
amnesties -- and giving work permits to illegal aliens -- the last half-
decade, the granting of a "jobs amnesty" would be a direct violation by the
President of the wishes of Congress.
My point here is that Pres. Obama is trying to operate in a part of
immigration law in which Congress has given Presidents some discretion. He
does NOT appear to be -- as yet, anyway -- directly violating a specific
mandate from Congress. Congressional oversight hearings may find otherwise,
and I hope that they will begin immediately in September.
A mandatory E-Verify law, however, would be quite different. It would NOT
give the President any discretion in setting up a computer system to track
any employer that fails to use E-Verify in screening new workers.
Such a law would NOT give the President any discretion in the computer
system sending out "No-Match Letters" to employers about existing workers
who have mismatched or fictitious Social Security numbers, and ordering the
firing of the workers who can't resolve the issue.
I have no doubt that if Congress passes a mandatory E-Verify law that Pres.
Obama will see that these systems are set up and put in operation.
Would he aggressively fine and jail employers who don't comply? That is
where discretion will enter. We know that Pres. Obama rarely suppports
enforcing the law against illegal aliens. But he has shown quite a lot of
interest and activity in enforcing the law against U.S. citizens who break
immigration laws as business owners. So, I am hopeful that Pres. Obama
would at least be moderately strong in taking business E-Verify violators to
court.
The most important thing here is that once Congress makes it just as illegal
to NOT use E-Verify as it is illegal to NOT withhold Social Security taxes
on a worker, nearly all employers will comply with the law. Most of the
compliance with an E-Verify law will happen voluntarily (just as compliance
with Social Security withholding).
Unlike in the area of deportations that depend almost entirely on daily
positive actions by the Administration, a mandatory E-Verify law doesn't
depend on that kind of direct federal enforcement.
To summarize on Argument No. 2:
•It DOES matter what laws Congress passes. If it passes laws giving
discretion to Pres. Obama, he has proven that he will bend that law as far
as possible to favor illegal foreign workers over unemployed Americans.
•But if Congress passes laws with direct orders and without discretion
, we do not have an indication that Pres. Obama would set himself up for an
impeachment trial by simply disregarding such an immigration law. (I repeat
that I do not believe that Pres. Obama would directly violate such a
congressional mandate. But even if you think he would, why not pass a
mandatory E-Verify law and just dare him to ignore it and prove he deserves
impeachment.)
Assertion No. 3: . . . . And passing a national mandatory E-Verify law to
keep illegal aliens from holding U.S. jobs won't do any good because Pres.
Obama will have given all the illegal aliens work permits that will get them
through the E-Verify screening process.
NOT TRUE -- most illegal aliens would still NOT have work permits even under
the worst application of the new Obama policy.
At the moment, the new Administration policy on Deferred Action and
potential work permits is not about ALL millions of illegal aliens but about
the 300,000 who have been ordered deported.
Thus, a mandatory E-Verify law would still get at most of the illegal aliens
now holding jobs or seeking jobs. Because they would NOT have been given
Deferred Action and work permits.
Furthermore, I believe that NumbersUSA and like-minded citizens are going to
stir up so much opposition and outrage to Mr. Obama's new policy -- and
sufficient leaders in Congress will join the protest -- that Pres. Obama
will back down and limit his "presence" amnesty somewhat and limit any "jobs
amnesty" to no more than a few thousand illegal aliens (rather than
HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of illegal aliens). That mobilized outrage is
underway right now as we are delivering more than 10,000 protest faxes a day
into the White House from American voters.
NumbersUSA has come under some criticism from anti-amnesty activists for not
being as aggressive in our public statements about Pres. Obama's new policy
as have some other groups.
But regardless of how each of us may TALK, no group has actually DONE more
to fight this policy than NumbersUSA which began processing tens of
thousands of protest faxes to Congress and the President within a few hours
of the White House announcement of the new policy last week. In fact,
NumbersUSA months ago was the first group to alert the nation to the
internal Administration memos that indicated this policy was coming. Since
then, we have processed hundreds of thousands of faxes and driven thousands
of phone calls in protest.
Yes, NumbersUSA will always be very careful about facts, about nuance and
about practical strategies that achieve real, tangible improvements for the
American people. That means our rhetoric may sometimes be tamer than some
activists prefer. But you can count on us to not overstate or mislead just
to win a point.
One of the practical principles that we always adhere to here is that we don
't insist on 100% results for every action. Even if a mandatory E-Verify
law would only be 80% as effective or even 50% as effective because of Obama
Administration subversion, we believe that such a law should be passed
because it still would result in millions of Americans having a job who
otherwise would not.
Assertion No. 4: . . . . Thus, these particular anti-amnesty advocates are
saying, they have no interest in any longer pushing for the mandatory E-
Verify law that our anti-illegal-immigration movement has had as a top
priority for two decades (even though we have the best chance since 1996 to
pass the legislation this fall).
EXACTLY HOW THE PRO-AMNESTY CROWD HOPED WE WOULD RESPOND.
For those of you who are considering this course of action, I want you to
imagine this scenario:
•For most of the year, PRO-amnesty leaders have lamented that chances
of amnesty had dwindled to nothing and that the only immigration action
likely out of Congress this year would be an E-Verify law that would drive
millions of illegal aliens out of payroll jobs.
•Those PRO-amnesty leaders by July were in despair that nothing was
going to stop House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith from driving his E-Verify
bill through the House.
•Imagine those PRO-amnesty leaders trying to think of a way to detour
and re-channel all of the anti-illegal-worker energies that were driving the
E-Verify push. Imagine them trying to find a way to put us on the
defensive so we would abandon the thing the PRO-amnesty people fear the most
-- mandatory national E-Verify.
Well, it looks like Pres. Obama's new Deferred Action plan threatens to pull
off a political miracle for the PRO-amnesty side.
If our citizen army and our allies in Congress focus this fall primarily on
knocking down the new Obama policy and lose this golden opportunity to pass
a national mandatory E-Verify law, then we all will have cooperated as co-
conspirators with the PRO-amnesty crowd for them to achieve a pro-illegal-
immigration victory beyond their wildest dreams.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only
if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide
proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where
our blogs may be republished or reposted.
