Let's Play...

...YOU be the Immigration Judge.

Here's your case:

Modesto Rosales

• Male
• 23 years old
• Arrived in the USA on a B2 visa 21 years ago
• Speaks English fluently
• Father of two, though not listed as so on the birth certificates
• Provides some support to his children
• Filed tax returns
• Enrolled in “Transforming Incarcerated Dads”
• Married to a U S Citizen

But wait, there’s more…

Juvenile rap sheet:

•  residential burglary
• disorderly conduct
• aggravated battery
• resisting an officer

Adult convictions:

• driving under the influence
• driving on a suspended license
• possession/consumption of alcohol by a minor
• domestic battery/bodily harm
• unlawful possession of a firearm

Immigration charges

• Overstayed his visa (Charged August 2009)
• Firearms possession (Charged January 2012)

Personal life

• Wife plans to divorce him

So, what do you think?  Should the judge give him a Green Card or order him deported?

(drum roll, please) The answer is:

Judge Robert P. Owens ordered that Rosales’ application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident be granted.  Translation:  He was given a Green Card.

One is left wondering who would be considered deportable.

Well, the judge surely blew this one.  The judge ruled in April of this year.  On June 23^rd Rosales and another man invaded the home of his former girlfriend (and mother of the five-year-old), beat her, beat the man in the home with an iron…all this while his son watched on (so much for the “good father” part).

Here’s the story from The Courier News:

Accused home invader won prior bid to stay in US

By Mike Danahey mdanahey@stmedianetwork.com June 27, 2012 10:18PM

Updated: June 28, 2012 5:12PM

ELGIN — One of the men accused in last weekend’s home invasion and brutal beating of two people was allowed to stay in the country by a judge in April, federal documents indicate.

According to U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Immigration Court documents obtained by The Courier-News and dated April 12, 2012, Judge Robert P. Owens ruled in favor of Modesto Rosales during removal proceedings against Rosales.

Owens ordered that Rosales’ application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident be granted.

According to reports, Rosales, 23, and Jaime Zarate, age unknown, are accused of invading a home along the 400 block of Raymond Street early Saturday morning, where they beat a man in the face with an iron and also beat Rosales’ former girlfriend in front of her 5-year-old child. Elgin police arrested the two men later that morning after a short chase near Rosales’ home in the 300 block of Wilcox Avenue, reports stated.

Reports stated both had been out on parole and were charged with home invasion, a Class X felony, and four counts of aggravated battery, a Class 3 felony. Rosales also was charged with aggravated domestic battery, a Class 2 felony. The men remain in Kane County jail Wednesday with bail set at $500,000 for each, and both are to appear in court again Friday.

“The Court finds that the respondent’s equities in this case tip the scale, ever so slightly, in the respondent’s favor,” the document states. “Clearly, the respondent’s criminal history is substantial and extremely troublesome, However, the Court is persuaded that the respondent has shown sufficient remorse, maturity and rehabilitation to merit a final opportunity to stay in the United States.”

The adverse factors Owens considered were that Rosales “has been convicted of driving under the influence, driving on a suspended license, possession/consumption of alcohol by a minor, domestic battery/bodily harm, and unlawful possession of a firearm,” the document states, noting these offenses took place between July 24, 2003, and March 18, 2009.

Rosales also testified that he had been arrested on several occasions as a juvenile on charges including residential burglary, disorderly conduct, aggravated battery and resisting an officer, the document states.

Favorable factors considered by Owens included that Rosales has been in the United States since he was 2 years old, had never left the U.S., and that he is more comfortable speaking English than Spanish.

The document also notes Rosales’ strong family ties in the U.S. and a citizen wife, “although she testified that she plans to divorce him when she has the time and money to do so,” the document states.

According to the document, Rosales has filed tax returns, is a good father and has two children who are U.S. citizens whom he provides for though “he is not listed as their father on their birth certificates.”

In October 2011, he enrolled in “Transforming Incarcerated Dads” to improve his parenting skills, the document states, and Rosales also enrolled in several classes to increase his job skills while last incarcerated.

An immigration hearing was conducted March 12, the document states. On Aug. 5. 2009, the Department of Homeland Security served Rosales with a notice to appear in court for remaining well beyond well beyond the six months allowed as a B2 visitor who came to the United States through Brownsville, Texas. On Jan. 19, the DHS served additional charges regarding Rosales’ Dec. 28, 2010, conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, a deportable offense.

Source Link:

http://couriernews.suntimes.com/news/crime/13451821-418/accused-home-invader-won-prior-bid-to-stay-in-us.html

The King of Taxation

When the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare on the basis that it is a tax and that government has the right to tax us, they created the mother of all unintended consequences.

Obama will now forever be known as the president who lobbied hard and won the distinction as the man who imposed the largest and most ominous tax in history.

How could it be otherwise?  This tax will impact all of us and continue to grow in size and scope.  Medical costs are the largest expense we have.  And the costs have grown wildly, outstripping the rate of inflation year-after-year.

And what a legacy for Obama.  No wonder he's denying it is a tax.  But you can't have it both ways, Barack.  Unless you call it a tax you don't have the right to impose it.

Obamacare is the largest tax in history and it must be noted that Obama and the democrats hold all the blame here.  They were told repeatedly by the GOP and the American people not to pass it.  You deserve the crown of taxation.

Gagging again

Once is more than enough.

• Do you remember how Obamacare failed twice in Congress?
• Do you remember the costume party at the White House where white lab coats were provided for the photo op with the doctors who supported it?
• Do you remember that Obama cut a deal with pharma early on so they would stand aside during the public debate on Obamacare?
• Do you remember all the deals and procedural dancing to get it passed?
• Do you remember Pelosi telling us to get it passed so we can find out what's in it?
• Do you remember that Obama claimed there was no GOP alternative?

We gagged and Congress passed the bill on a week end.

Now I feel like the Supreme Court just shoved it all further down our throats.

Let us hope there is a strong gag reflex on November 6th.

Taking Stock of the Situation

(In the aftermath of the U S Supreme Court ruling of Arizona SB1070)

If I’m an illegal alien (or a future one) I’m feeling pretty good these days.

For example, worksite raids have ended thanks to Obama’s selective enforcement (or lack thereof) of federal laws prohibiting people to work without authorization.

So, the feds won’t check up on you…and as of today the U S Supreme Court has forbidden the states from checking.

Illegal aliens can go ahead and work with confidence.  In fact, the only suckers are the citizens who dutifully fill out their I-9 forms and provide the required ID to employers.

Speaking of ID, remember that pesky rule that’s on the books requiring immigrants to carry their papers?  That is so yesterday.  Once again, the feds don’t bother to check and the states are forbidden to do so.  “We don’t need no stinkin’ papers.”

And if you drag your children across the border they have Obama’s blessing that they can take our jobs and get an automatic work permit.  Sweet.

What’s even better is that Obama’s opponent in the November election sounds like he’ll do the same thing or something similar.

So, if you’re an illegal alien you should be breathing easier these days.  The rules you thought you were breaking are not being enforced.

For the rest of us, I wonder just how this soft approach is going to serve to deter future illegal aliens.  Just how is this supposed to help?

Sun Times Sniffing Around

The Chicago Sun Times has traditionally been the newspaper of the left in town.  These days it’s hard to find any rag that doesn’t shill for Obama.  But The Sun Times is going out on a limb to criticize Obama.

Staff reporter Dan Mihalopoulos wrote a story today about David Axelrod, Obama’s PR manager who left the White House last year to work full time on the campaign.

It seems that Axelrod’s old PR firm, the one that he founded, is knee-deep in Chicago business.

Of course, Mayor Rahm Emanuel was Chief of Staff at the same time Axelrod worked in the White House.  Hmmm.

And although Axelrod left the PR firm to work in Washington, he’s still drawing $200K a year (Does that make him a 1%-er?) from the firm and his new firm is on the same floor in the same building as the old.

Did I mention that he still has an office in the old firm?

Did I mention that two of the projects Axelrod’s old firm is working on are very lucrative, long-term programs – renovating Wrigley Field with public money and an infrastructure investment scheme using private funds.

But all the answers are lined up to assure us that everything is legit.  [Of course they are.  Chicago politics is always clean.]

Here’s a sample of the official explanations:

• Axelrod says he had no role in landing those contracts and isn’t involved in the work ASGK is doing for Citibank…or for the Cubs.
• Axelrod says he didn’t even know Citibank was an ASGK client until a reporter told him.
• Axelrod says the terms of his deal with ASGK “are fixed and unaffected by these deals” with Citibank and the Cubs.
• “If you think hiring Axelrod’s old firm will get you special access or privileges, you are sorely mistaken,” says spokeswoman Sarah Hamilton. “No person or company has an inside track into City Hall.”
• The firm’s executives don’t register as lobbyists because they say they don’t ever directly lobby — contacting public officials on behalf of their clients. Rather, they say they help clients get their stories out in other ways — with “media relations, message development, advertising, social media and constituency relations.”
• Another Axelrod-founded firm — AKPD Media and Messaging — recently produced ads critical of the Chicago Teachers Union, which is embroiled in a contract dispute with Emanuel.
• AKPD oversaw Emanuel’s ad blitz during his mayoral campaign, and the firm is a paid consultant to his political committee, state records show.
• “I rent space in my old offices, but I work full-time out of Obama headquarters these days,” Axelrod says.
• Ald. Will Burns (4th) — who voted for the trust — works for ASGK. Its website lists him as a managing partner. Burns says he doesn’t work on the Citibank account and had been unaware that Citibank is an ASGK client.

Absolutely the best photo depicting the matter is this one:

But you’ve got to trust the Chicago Machine.  There’s nothing to see here.  Really.  Especially in an election year.

A tip of the hat to Mr. Mihalopoulos for his political courage.

Source link: http://www.suntimes.com/news/13149087-761/david-axelrod-no-role-in-firms-deals.html

David Axelrod: No role in firm’s deals

BY DAN MIHALOPOULOS, Chicago Sun Times Staff Reporter

dmihalopoulos@suntimes.com

Last Modified: Jun 18, 2012 02:10AM

David Axelrod — the top campaign adviser to President Barack Obama — sold his ownership stake in ASGK Public Strategies in 2009, when he became a senior White House adviser.

But Axelrod didn’t cut his ties to the Chicago public relations firm completely. He still has an office there. His name is on the door. His old partners are still paying him the five annual $200,000 payments they agreed to when they bought him out.

Now, two of the firm’s clients — Citibank and the Chicago Cubs — have a lot riding on decisions to be made by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the Axelrod friend and former White House colleague who ran on a pledge to reform a City Hall he described as riddled with influence-peddling.

Axelrod says he had no role in landing those contracts and isn’t involved in the work ASGK is doing for Citibank, which wants to help finance Emanuel’s highly touted Chicago Infrastructure Trust, or for the Cubs, who want Emanuel’s help in financing a major renovation of Wrigley Field.

Axelrod says he didn’t even know Citibank was an ASGK client until a reporter told him.

“I knew they represent the Cubs — I’m a huge fan,” says Axelrod, who’s back in Chicago from Washington to guide the president’s re-election campaign, which is based here. “But I have not been involved in the [Wrigley] project and don’t know the details of it.”

Axelrod says the terms of his deal with ASGK “are fixed and unaffected by these deals” with Citibank and the Cubs.

Emanuel’s top spokeswoman says hiring ASGK won’t win Citibank and the Cubs any favors from City Hall.

“If you think hiring Axelrod’s old firm will get you special access or privileges, you are sorely mistaken,” says spokeswoman Sarah Hamilton. “No person or company has an inside track into City Hall.”

Still, the public is rightly skeptical when companies with insider connections are involved with government, especially when the stakes are high, says David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale.

Yepsen says the Cubs and any firm that wants a part of the potentially lucrative Infrastructure Trust should engage in “total transparency” about who’s helping their efforts.

“I don’t want to say they shouldn’t be doing business with the city, but they have to do their ‘moving and shaking’ in the open,” Yepsen says. “Rahm Emanuel, Axelrod’s old firm, these banks — they don’t need any inference of impropriety or cronyism. They have to show they have nothing to hide and that what they are doing is in the public’s interest.”

ASGK quietly has played a role in a number of major issues at City Hall, among them helping win City Council approval in 2008 for the Chicago Children’s Museum’s now-abandoned plan to move from Navy Pier to Grant Park.

The firm’s executives don’t register as lobbyists because they say they don’t ever directly lobby — contacting public officials on behalf of their clients. Rather, they say they help clients get their stories out in other ways — with “media relations, message development, advertising, social media and constituency relations.”

Another Axelrod-founded firm — AKPD Media and Messaging — recently produced ads critical of the Chicago Teachers Union, which is embroiled in a contract dispute with Emanuel. AKPD oversaw Emanuel’s ad blitz during his mayoral campaign, and the firm is a paid consultant to his political committee, state records show.

Like ASGK, AKPD continues to pay Axelrod for selling his stake in that firm. AKPD owed him $2 million, to be paid over four years, when he became a White House aide, Axelrod told federal ethics officials.

Both AKPD and ASKG are housed at the same River North address that’s also home to Axelrod Strategies, the firm he founded upon leaving the White House last year. “I rent space in my old offices, but I work full-time out of Obama headquarters these days,” Axelrod says.

ASGK’s managing partner, Eric Sedler, won’t talk about the work the firm is doing for the Cubs and Citibank.

Dennis Culloton, spokesman for the Cubs’ owners, won’t say what ASGK is doing for the team but says it was hired in the past year and answers to Michael Lufrano, the team’s general counsel and executive vice president of community affairs.

The team needs support from Emanuel and the City Council to advance its $300 million plan to rehab Wrigley. In April, Emanuel said negotiations for a Wrigley deal were in the final stages. Then, the mayor reacted angrily to reports last month that Joe Ricketts — patriarch of the family that owns the Cubs — was part of a conservative group considering a since-dropped plan for a $10 million attack ad campaign on Obama.

Emanuel has since declared that that won’t affect negotiations with the Cubs, but Hamilton says City Hall currently isn’t engaged in any Wrigley talks. “If and when they do resume, the mayor will make his decision based on what is best for taxpayers,” Hamilton says.

Citibank and a fund called Citi Infrastructure Partners — which won’t talk about ASGK’s work — were two of the five financial institutions that Emanuel singled out at a March 1 news conference with former President Bill Clinton at which he announced the formation of the Chicago Infrastructure Trust. Citibank and Citi Infrastructure Partners told city officials they’re considering investing as much as $200 million apiece in the initiative, which is designed to use private dollars to pay for public works projects.

Asked how the firms came to be involved in the initiative, which hadn’t been approved by the City Council, Hamilton says Lois Scott, Emanuel’s chief City Hall financial officer, relied on her 30 years of experience in the private sector and “made calls with an open invitation . . . to express investment potential.”

A newly nominated, five-member board will screen applicants to finance Infrastructure Trust deals. With only seven aldermen dissenting, the Council quickly approved an ordinance creating the trust in April.

Ald. Will Burns (4th) — who voted for the trust — works for ASGK. Its website lists him as a managing partner. Burns says he doesn’t work on the Citibank account and had been unaware that Citibank is an ASGK client, though Citibank is listed as a client on the firm’s website. “I don’t do a lot of work for ASGK, to be very frank,” Burns says, adding that city ethics officials assured him that his vote for the Infrastructure Trust wasn’t a conflict of interest because “any number of financial institutions can participate in the trust.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2012 — Sun-Times Media, LLC

Once Again, Timing is Everything

Obama has pulled off another pre-emptive strike.  Not in Syria or Afghanistan.  In Pennsylvania.

Romney was slated to make a campaign stop in Weatherly PA, less than ten miles from Hazelton, home of the famous Hazelton illegal alien ordinance.  No one knows if Mitt was planning to use the illegal alien problem as a rallying cry while in the area, but it is interesting that Obama chose that same day to come out with his program to stall the deportation of teens and young adults.

I am concerned that Romney didn’t turn the tables on him.  He could have used the Hazelton cause as a prime example of the lack of action by the executive branch to enforce the law.  The Hazelton story is one of frustration and political courage.

Instead Romney chose to agree with Obama on the need for a work permit program.  He even invoked Marco Rubio.  What none of them understand is that giving illegal aliens what they want will only encourage more families to come here. 

One commentator said amnesty equals citizenship and this program doesn’t offer citizenship.  Well, a quick look at the low naturalization rates will reveal that illegals don’t care about citizenship.  They just want to work.  And renewable work papers are all the amnesty they need.

So, Obama pulled one over on Mitt while he was nine miles from Hazelton.

The GOP is going to have to find some courage or they will clutch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Plouffe Spills the Beans

David Plouffe is credited as the new media mastermind of Obama’s 2008 win.  And he was on the air Sunday spouting the talking points of the campaign.

He was dancing around Obama’s poor performance on the economy by going back to the “Blame Bush” meme.  Plouffe told Fox News Sunday, “Listen, this was a deep hole caused by same policies Romney wants to go back to.”  Perfect!  Blame Bush and paint Romney with the same stripes…all without a rational thought.

Hidden in his excuse is the fundamental difference between the candidates.  Obama believes he can fix the economy with higher taxes, mandated benefits programs and more government workers.  It’s more like socialism than a free market economy.

On the other hand, Romney believes we ought to foster the business environment with lower taxes, fewer government-mandated programs and fewer government workers.

Obama takes no blame for the mortgage crash or the failed bailouts.  He deflects any criticism of cash-for-clunkers or Solyndra.  Obama takes no blame for strangling business loans with new regulations.  His whole excuse is that Bush left him with a mess and it’s going to take another term to fix it.

Appeasing is NOT Leading

The election season is always painful for us.  And this year it is particularly tedious because of the circumstances.

In a normal cycle you might have two or three strong candidates leading up to the convention.  And they keep an eye on each other by talking about GOP principles.  But this year you have a sitting president (no competition) pitted against a candidate who has eliminated the competition early.

Since Mitt Romney doesn’t need to fear the delegates, he’s already in general election mode.

And that means sending out messages calculated to please democrats.

An early test of Romney’s integrity came when he made comments about Obama’s DREAM Act by fiat.  After establishing himself as an immigration hard-liner during the debates, Mitt now shows his other side by sounding more like Rick Perry than Herman Cain. 

Romney is banking on party loyalty here.  He puts voters in a predicament.  We won’t vote for Obama; that is clear.  We could look for a dark horse Libertarian.  Or write in Palin.  Or stay home on election day.  Any such option is throwing away your vote.

Or we could just hold our noses and vote for Mitt.

And the political strategists are counting on it.  But they fail to factor in the notion that politically active people (you know, those ornery Tea Party folks) are now less likely to walk their neighborhoods and make those phone calls for Mitt.  And when they talk to their friends all they will say is, “He’s slightly better than what we’ve got now.”

That isn’t much of an endorsement for Romney.

And if he gets elected we must fear the potential for appeasement from a President Romney.  He has a reputation for compromise on some rather core Republican principles as governor of Massachusetts.

My DREAM Act

Of course, there is some sympathy for those who have been brought here as children.  So, what’s to be done?

First, real immigration reform needs to address one of the flaws pointed out by democrats way back in 1994; does our immigration policy serve the national interest?

This “Family unification” or “Chain migration” does not.  Even Obama touts the importance of tapping the international talent pool for inventors, scientists and entrepreneurs.  What our current relative-based system does is insure that we are bringing in more high school dropouts with low skills to compete with our own poor.

So, we would shift to a points system to determine who should be given work visas.

Where the DREAMERS are concerned, we would expect them to return to their home countries and apply for legal entry.  We would allow them safe passage out of the United States as long as they had no criminal record.

And their visa request would be evaluated for their ability to serve the national interest.  This is where the DREAMERS would really shine.  They would have a good education already, courtesy of the American taxpayer; but let’s not be picky here.

They would have excellent English-speaking skills, which would give them extra points in the evaluation.

They would need to show a means of self-support here, which should be easier based on the sympathies and contacts from their years of living here.  They will compete with our own citizens, rather hard-hit at the moment due to the poor economy.

There would be two more requirements:

1)     Their visa would be part of the total pool of the visa quota from their home country.

2)     The real villains here (their parents who brought them here) would have to prove that they have returned to their home country as well.  That is their “punishment” for creating this mess in the first place.

So, these DREAM Act kids would have a built-in advantage in the points system.  They will have complied with the law and we have shown mercy at the same time.

Has the Waffle Man Returned?

After Obama’s announcement to suspend deportation of young people. June 15, 2012

"I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long term basis so they know what their future would be in this country. I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long term solution because an executive order is, of course, just a short term matter. It can be reversed by subsequent presidents. I'd like to see legislation that deals with this issue and I happen to agree with Marco Rubio as he considers this issue. He said that this is an important matter, we have to find a long term solution but the president's action makes reaching a long term solution more difficult. If I'm president, we'll do our very best to have that kind of long term solution that provides certainty and clarity for the people who come into this country through no fault of their own by virtue of the actions of their parents."

Expanding the Plantation

Obama is about to plant more crops on the democrat plantation of people dependent on the government.  He just announced amnesty for young people brought here by their parents as illegal aliens.  They are given work permits and become immune from deportation for at least two years.

The take-away message is that their parents screwed up and Uncle Sam (the Nanny) is going to clean up the mess.  In exchange the Latinos are expected to vote for Obama in November.  This is a perfect dependency plan.

So, what will be the Romney response? 

He could remain silent and let others criticize Obama’s power grab ahead of the election.  (After all, why would he wait three and a half years to do this?  Napolitano is a lawyer and so is he.  Why not just create his “DREAM Act by executive order” in March of 2009?)

Or, Mitt could come out in support of Obama’s plan and take the wind out of his sails.  Such a move would please Jeb Bush, Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzalez.  But by doing that Romney would aggravate conservatives. 

Or, he could explain why this move is wrong.  From rewarding bad behavior to sending the wrong message to being unfair to our own citizens to being blatant election-year pandering, to…well…expanding the plantation; all viable reasons NOT to do DREAM-like amnesty.

So, Mr. Romney…it’s your move.

Below is the DHS press release from the Obama administration:

Secretary Napolitano Announces Deferred Action Process for Young People Who Are Low Enforcement Priorities

Release Date: June 15, 2012

For Immediate Release

 Office of the Press Secretary

 Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON— Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano today announced that effective immediately, certain young people who were brought to the United States as young children, do not present a risk to national security or public safety, and meet several key criteria will be considered for relief from removal from the country or from entering into removal proceedings. Those who demonstrate that they meet the criteria will be eligible to receive deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and will be eligible to apply for work authorization.

“Our nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner,” said Secretary Napolitano. “But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.”

DHS continues to focus its enforcement resources on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders. Today’s action further enhances the Department’s ability to focus on these priority removals.

Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that they meet the following criteria will be eligible for an exercise of discretion, specifically deferred action, on a case by case basis:

1.Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;

2.Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;

3.Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

4.Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

5.Are not above the age of thirty.

Only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action. Individuals will not be eligible if they are not currently in the United States and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding today’s date. Deferred action requests are decided on a case-by-case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that all such requests will be granted. The use of prosecutorial discretion confers no substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.

While this guidance takes effect immediately, USCIS and ICE expect to begin implementation of the application processes within sixty days. In the meantime, individuals seeking more information on the new policy should visit USCIS’s website (at www.uscis.gov), ICE’s website (at www.ice.gov), or DHS’s website (at www.dhs.gov). Beginning Monday, individuals can also call USCIS’ hotline at 1-800-375-5283 or ICE’s hotline at 1-888-351-4024 during business hours with questions or to request more information on the forthcoming process.

For individuals who are in removal proceedings and have already been identified as meeting the eligibility criteria and have been offered an exercise of discretion as part of ICE’s ongoing case-by-case review, ICE will immediately begin to offer them deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal.

For more information on the Administration policy reforms to date, please see this fact sheet.

###

This page was last reviewed/modified on June 15, 2012.

Source link: http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20120612-napolitano-announces-deferred-action-process-for-young-people.shtm

The President and Business

We had the first presidential debate yesterday in Ohio.  Of course, they were 220 miles apart at the time.  But they at least were talking about the same subject at the same time and the cameras were rolling.

The topic was economic growth.  Obama’s message was pretty much this: We’ve got more work to do but if you vote for Romney it’ll be like putting Bush back in office…and we know how he crashed the economy before I came to office.

Well, he’s giving Bush too much credit.  Obama left out the good part about Barney Frank and the GSEs killing the housing market by ignoring the warnings about bad loans.

And Romney’s message was this: Obama’s policies do not instill confidence in government and do not encourage business growth.

And Mitt’s message didn’t exactly spell out specifics except to repeal Obamacare.

But rather than trade barbs it would be refreshing to have a candidate talk to us like adults and explain the relationship between business and government.

My fantasy candidate would say something like this:

The United States and Japan compete for the highest business tax rates in the world, something approaching 40%.  And that leads to all the loopholes giving Obama the speech fodder that giant corporation XYZ doesn’t pay any taxes.  But ask any small business owner and you’ll get an earful about taxes.

Contrary to popular, political rhetoric government does not create private sector jobs.  But it does impact business in the following ways:

• Taxation
• Regulation – EPA and OSHA for example
• Union laws – like card check
• Tariffs and trade agreements
• Labor laws – like Obamacare, minimum wage, pension laws
• Favoritism – like SBA loans, green grants, bailouts

As you can see, a progressive/liberal president can create a hostile environment rather quickly using the above tools…all in the name of “spreading the wealth around.”  And as the Occupy crowd has illustrated, Obama’s efforts are never enough to satisfy them.  Then again, the Occupy crowd is opposed to free market capitalism.  Their fringe view of what America should be is gratefully not embraced by most of us.

Although not as radical as OWS, Obama can scarcely claim to be pro-business when he spent the first two years in office promoting card check, cap and trade and Obamacare.  It wasn’t until the midterms that he invited business leaders to the White House for a powwow.

Getting serious about reforming the business climate here will take time and effort.  It will require undoing regulations and statutes built up over the years.  Where taxes are concerned, it will require cutting federal programs to prevent further deficit spending.  In short, something’s gotta give if we’re going to have less tax revenue.

The green initiative is well-entrenched.  Changing EPA regulations will take time.  In the short term we can do what other presidents have done; cut off enforcement funding and be selective through directive.  In other words, pick-and-choose the regulations you will enforce and the ones you will ignore.

Right-to-work has some traction and I will not support any efforts to force unions into American businesses.

We need to have a serious discussion in this country about the trade imbalance.  Twenty years ago politicians used to discuss that.  We’ve surrendered to global interests and lost the ability to manufacture our own consumer goods.  The grandiose concept of a service economy has failed.  Dare I use the word “Protectionism”?  Yes, I do.

But I warn you that we have been living in a world of cheap, imported goods.  Bringing manufacturing home will be hard on your wallet. 

Playing favorites has not been effective.  Be it loans to so-called minority-owned businesses, green technology manufacturers or bailouts to car companies we need to get government out of these businesses.  And we need to review all subsidies as well.  Why are we giving them?  Is it in our best interest to continue doing so? 

So you see, untying the knot formed by an assortment of congressmen and presidents over the years will not be easy.  Perhaps it will be impossible.  But that is what needs to be done and I am willing to try.

Job Creation

About those 4 million jobs Obama has created in the private sector…

It seems that such a boast ought to be easy to verify, but I’ve been reading article after article and all I get is bias from the left and the right.

First, one must look at the source and the motive.  Sarah Jessica Parker was pitching an Obama fundraiser.  Now, Parker is a lot of things, mostly an actress who has played the promiscuous blonde on TV and in movies for the last couple of decades.  I don’t really rely on her for accurate economic data.

Of course, she didn’t make up that number.  It has been an Obama talking point for a couple of years now. 

And the footnote takes you back to official executive branch data from the BLS.  So, they are getting the information from the charts and graphs.  But is the data being interpreted properly?

Job creation like that should have had a significant impact on the unemployment numbers – right?  Well, maybe not.  We issue a million green cards a year to foreigners.  Obama hasn’t slowed that down.  And as Samuel Gompers points out, immigration is essentially a labor issue.  People come here to work.

On top of that, there have been three years worth of college graduates and others entering the market.  So, let’s assume that a healthy economy would need perhaps 2.5 million jobs A YEAR just to break even.  That makes the four-million-job boast seem rather anemic, eh?

Now, no one really understands the BLS data.  When they talked about 450,000 new jobless claims every week in the unemployment reports, that never made any sense to me.  If you do the math that means 5 million unemployed people in four months time.  I think they mean new AND continuing unemployment claims.

But that brings up the next snafu.  When benefits run out, the number drops.  The poor stiff didn’t find a job; he just ran out of benefits.  And it certainly doesn’t include the UNDERemployed (like me) who are working for less than half of what we were making before.

Where do they fit in to the Parker/Obama boast of all those new jobs?

One analysis suggests that if the BLS continues to sweep the long-term unemployed off the bottom of the chart the unemployment rate will be zero by election day.
Source link: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/01/07/obama_unemployment_magic_trick_indefinitely_detain_4_million_people_from_workforce

Once again, we are left to guess at the validity of the claim.  It doesn’t feel like a good economy, but who knows?  One thing’s for sure; only a fool would accept “trust me,” from any politician.

Still Crazy After All These Years

Paul Simon’s 1975 song is an appropriate message for the old guard GOP as they advise Mitt Romney on how to win the Hispanic vote.  The likes of Jeb Bush, Alberto Gonzalez and Karl Rove (you can’t get more RINO than that) are telling Mitt through the media that he needs to soften up on immigration enforcement.

It is always a puzzle that these has-beens have to advise the candidate by telling the reporters what he needs to do.  Why not pick up the phone and have a private conversation about it?  Or send him a letter?  Or talk to one of his strategists?  Why muddy the waters by criticizing the candidate openly?

Jeb Bush’s advice to Romney, given through reporters at GHWB’s birthday bash, “Don’t just talk about Hispanics and say immediately we must have controlled borders,” said Bush, who has endorsed Romney and is a member of the candidate’s Hispanic Steering Committee. “It’s kind of insulting when you think about it. Change the tone would be the first thing. Second, on immigration, I think we need to have a broader approach.”

Source link: http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/06/11/jeb-bush-criticizes-gop-partisanship-says-mitt-romney-needs-change-tone-immigration/c8Xd0b6VVwqy0U6IKjojKK/story.html

Gonzalez says Romney needs to polish up the DREAM Act and dangle that in front of Latinos.

Source link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/11/what-alberto-gonzales-wants-romney-to-know-about-hispanic-voters/

And Karl Rove keeps telling us that Mitt needs to tone things down…like John McCain did.  Well, after throwing the party platform under the bus in 2008, John McCain got a whopping 36% of the Latino vote.  Was it worth it?

Since Obama made the gaffe last week that the economy is “doing just fine,” everyone has been pointing out how out-of-touch he really is.  But look in the mirror, folks.  Jeb, Alberto and Karl are really out-of-touch with the GOP voters.  They trot out their ultra-conservative, Tea Party labels to marginalize the sentiment, but they are wrong.

The GOP platform gives a rational sentiment of the Republican voter.  Why must they second-guess the party itself?  Because they are RINO hacks that have led us down the garden path by ignoring conservative principles.

Why do we listen to them?

Sure, Romney could pull a GWB and talk about amnesty, but that isn’t in the best interest of the United States.  Cheap votes are easy to come by, but that’s not leadership.

Shallow and Gullible

I often wonder how some people get reelected.  There is a fellow in the Illinois Legislature named Derrick Smith.  He’s on the ballot in November.  The trouble is that Derrick is under indictment for taking a bribe to influence a $50,000 state grant.

Fellow democrats were warning people about him.  The state legislature is holding hearings regarding his conduct.

But that didn’t stop the voters from choosing him in the primary.

Then there’s Meg Gorecki, the woman who won her State’s Attorney race years ago despite her voice on an answering machine promising a government job to someone if they donated to her campaign.

Just how do voters bring themselves to put people like this in office?

I think I have the answer.  People are shallow and gullible and they buy the advertisement hype.  The politicians who push those same buttons get votes.

I’m fascinated by these Internet ads that run alongside websites and pay for the content.  Sure, I understand capitalism and how impressions sell merchandise.  What fascinates me is that the content is downright idiotic.

For example, there’s a famous diet plan that shows a fit-and-trim man in his 40s telling us, “I ate burgers and drank beer and I still lost weight.”

Or the video clip of a woman in the hallway fumbling for her keys to her apartment when a perky blonde rushes up and says, “Don’t go in there.  It’s your surprise birthday party.  Let’s get your hair ‘party-ready’ in minutes with…”

Do people really buy that hype?  I guess so, or they wouldn’t use commercials like that.

But these same people vote based on red dresses and hair cuts.  They really do fall for the empty promises spouted by politicians. 

There is a laughable article on the web today about how “complex” the Obama message is.  Michael Finnegan of the LA Times suggests that Romney has a short message but Obama’s is more nuanced.  Of course, he’s a minion for Obama, but the readers don’t know that.  They just lap up the message that Barack is doing a great job but is misunderstood by the public.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-message-20120612,0,1568362.story

The truth is in the comments section of the article, but few care to examine it.

Vetting the Prez...finally

The website of the late Andrew Breitbart called Big Government is doing the job the MSN refuses to do.  That is, disseminate background on Barack Obama.  As The One in 2008, Obama’s backstory was ignored by the media.  Much of the dirt from his past was simply ignored and never investigated.

But since he’s on the ballot in November, Big Government is trying to get some answers to the burning questions from Obama’s past.

So far, they’ve had some interesting stories to tell.  Like the fact that he allowed (and perhaps even wrote) a short biography claiming he was born in Kenya.  He was the original birther and no one has called him on it.

Now, the purpose of this bio was to sell his books, so embellishments of the resume to make him sound exotic in the 1990’s is understandable.  And it helps explain why Obama took so long to set the record straight about his birth certificate.  But such a claim shows a lack of integrity.

Think for a moment about lies on resumes that have ousted police chiefs and school superintendents.  Shouldn’t the president be held to at least the same standard?

Other examples of Obama’s interesting past include his association and membership in a socialist party, his effort to buy off Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his anti-militarism stance, his closer-than-confessed ties with Bill Ayers…

Some folks, even on the right, think this vetting is wrong.  And judging by the continued silence by the media, this attention is limited to conservatives.  Other people do not seem to care.

But Breitbart’s organization is known to have lots of back-up material that is increasingly damning.  (Think of the ACORN scandal.)

We need a good October surprise to expose Mr. I-Vote-Present-to Please-Everyone.  After all, shouldn’t we a least be aware that he’s known to twist reality to please the audience before him?

I might add that Romney tends to play to the crowd and hope no one will notice his mixed message.  He doesn’t play as fast-and-loose as Obama, but he’s been known to waffle.  Wouldn’t it be nice to have a straight-shooting president for a change?

Odd Timing

Note the recent flurry of activity surrounding the Boy Scouts and gays.
Note also that the Mormon Church is one of the largest institutions supporting BSA.
Note also that Mitt Romney is a Mormon running for president.
The Left continues to stir the pot.  Expect more of the same between now and November.

Walker’s Rebellion

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker won his recall election by nine points.  He carried most of the state except some precincts in Madison and Milwaukee.

That’s good news for conservatives and a message to government agencies.

Among the take-away messages:

• People are recognizing that public sector benefit packages are not sustainable.
• Unions can no longer run the table by buying elections.  PAC money is available to fight back.
• Recall efforts to hijack the process don’t always work.  (We needed that after Russell Pierce was booted out of the Arizona State Senate.)
• Democrats at the federal level are shying away from the public pension debate.  Obama doesn’t want to touch it.
• Rahm Emanuel is coming down hard on Chicago Teachers, telling them they’ll have to work longer hours and trim their expectations when it comes to pensions.

But we have all come late to the party.  The Tea Party was first to tell us this spending can’t go on.  To have Illinois Governor Pat Quinn sound the alarm is startling news, but far too late to do much about it.  It is a train wreck.  Government agencies have not planned for the payouts.  You need to set money aside in interest-bearing accounts to cover the costs over the years.

Of course, the fallback is that the taxpayers are required to make up the difference.  And that is a heavy burden.

What is needed is to convert these pensions to IRAs, just like the private sector did 30 years ago.  Unless you were a union industry like autos.  Not coincidentally, those industries are having the same trouble as public unions; not enough money to pay for what they promised their employees. 

Obama bailed out GM, but doesn’t have the money or the political will to bail them all out.

We shall see what all this means in the future.  Walker may have stopped the bleeding, but undoing the Gordian Knot is a much more complicated matter.

On the national level, Obama is going to have to do some dancing during the campaign while Romney is in the catbird seat.  The middle class Obama talks about is really public employees with good paying jobs and union protection.  Andy Stern of the SEIU has stopped calling at the White House because he’s bled the turnip dry and only reminds us of the source of the problem.  Obama is on record pumping stimulus money into state budgets and school districts in 2009 and 2010, a strategy that only made matters worse and delayed the inevitable.

In short, his solution didn’t work. If Romney dares to talk about it and offers a solution, he can gain some votes among moderates and blue dogs.  But if Mitt just swallows his tongue to avoid controversy…well, then he gets what he deserves.

Playing “Mother, may I?” in New York

First it was Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s (D, then R, then I) suggestion that we ban the Big Gulp.  As strange as it may seem, he wants to ban the sale of soda pop over 20 ounces.

Such nonsense by a government that cannot manage much of anything effectively would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that it gives credence to nuts like Ron Paul.

But the other shoe dropped yesterday when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) introduced legislation legalizing marijuana.

Let that one sink in.  You could get busted for drinking a super-sized grape soda but having weed in your pocket is A-OK.

Presidential Candidate David Axelrod

The 2012 Presidential Race is getting crowded these days.  As the GOP trims its field to one, the democrats are doubling their choices.  Now Obama is running against David Axelrod…well, not exactly…but I got your attention.

Axelrod is just playing the role of Bad Cop and taking shots at Romney.  In fact, he sounds very much like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, chair of the DNC.  Or maybe Jay Carney.  I suppose there’s only so much you can do with talking points.

While Axelrod is casting his stones at Romney, Obama is at the White House with GWB, acting all moderate.

That’s the BO MO in an election year.  But it’s sort of like voting “Present” all those years in the Illinois Legislature.  That’s how he avoids offending people; let other people take a stand for you and grab the headlines.  Meanwhile, Obama plays to the Independent voter.

It doesn’t always work out for Obama, especially when other prominent democrats refuse to play along.  Axelrod labels Romney as a greedy 1%-er while Bill Clinton, Cory Booker and Deval Patrick are praising Bain Capital and Romney’s work there.

But Obama’s record reveals that he talks middle-of-the-road during the campaign then veers sharply left after the election.  What moderate would ever ask John Podesta, a flaming progressive, to head his transition team for the White House? 

Obama wants to keep his mouth shut and let others feed the liberals.

We don’t get fooled again.