Radio America Online News Bureau

immigration

SNAP Solutions, Google’s Diversity Disaster, Stand Up for Kaepernick?

by


Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome the news that over a million Americans left the food stamp rolls in the first few months of the Trump administration and discuss new state work requirements and immigration law enforcement as contributing factors to this continuing decrease in government dependence.  They’re also exasperated as Google fires an engineer for writing an internal memo criticizing Google for a diversity culture that is not at all diverse and makes people feel as though they’ll get fired if they say anything that doesn’t square with corporate ideology.  And they get a kick out of Spike Lee scheduling a “United We Stand for Colin Kaepernick” protest outside of NFL headquarters later this month.

Share

Ex-INS Official Hails Court Ruling on Travel Ban

by

The law is very clear that the president has the power to exclude any person or group of people from entering the United States and the Supreme Court was right to rule in his favor, according to a former high-ranking Immigration and Naturalization Service official.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appellate court decisions striking down President Trump’s executive order that calls for a 90-day travel ban from six nations with significant terrorism problems.  The justices lifted some of the injunctions against the executive order and agreed to hear oral arguments on other components later this year.

Temple University School of Law Professor Jan C. Ting served as assistant director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.  He says the Supreme Court’s stark reversal from the lower court decisions is striking.

“The unanimity of the high court was surprising.  Even the liberal wing of the court concurred in the judgment that the positions of the lower courts in striking down the ban were overly broad,” said Ting.

He fully expects the court to rule in Trump’s favor on the outstanding issues as well given what Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a separate opinion that both concurred and dissented from the majority opinion.

“It seemed like the travel ban was very likely to be affirmed by the high court on the merits when the high court gets to that point, and I think that’s reflected in the unanimous decision of the high court to push back on the lower court injunctions,” said Ting.

Ting has weighed in at various points of the travel ban debate, pointing out that Trump’s first version was perfectly legal based on existing U.S. statute, specifically 8 USC 1182(f).

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate,” the statute reads in part.

Ting says that makes this fierce political battle an open and shut case.

“The law is very clear.  The president has the authority to exclude any alien from the United States for any reason and for any period of time the president chooses.  That is unmistakably clear,” said Ting, noting the ruling is a rebuke to lower courts straining for reasons to block the order.

“The role of the courts is and ought to be very limited.  These are political questions, whether people should be excluded from the United States.  The political branches of government, the Congress and president together, should be making these decisions,” said Ting.

Critics often call the executive order a Muslim ban and cite first amendment concern.  Ting says that argument simply doesn’t hold up.

“I think it’s pretty clear that there’s not a religious issue there.  I mean anyone who reads the first amendment can see that we’re not establishing a religion in a travel ban,” said Ting.

Furthermore, he asserts that non-citizens in other countries don’t have constitutional rights.

“The notion that people who are outside the United States who are not citizens have some rights that they can assert under our Constitution is, I think, an erroneous claim.  Those issues will all be decided when the high court rules on the merits,” said Ting.

“It would be startling if people outside the United States had some constitutional right either to come to the United States or, frankly, whether they could assert any constitutional rights while as non-citizens outside the United States,” said Ting.

“We think the United States is an exceptional country, but our Constitution is not so great that it governs people all over the world who are not citizens,” he added.

In it’s decision, the Supreme Court allows people to travel to the U.S. from the six nations listed in the executive order only if there is a clear connection for them in this country, ranging from a new job to admission to a college or university or if they have close family in the U.S.

Alternatively, the ban remains firmly in place for those without such connections.

Ting finds the distinction unhelpful.

“I’m with the three dissenters (Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito), who say this is going to give rise to a lot of unnecessary litigation before we get to the merits.  It’s really not necessary.  Since it’s going to be overturned anyway, why don’t we just restore it in the interim?” said Ting.

He says the answer to that can probably be found in in the man who leads the high court.

“I think we see the hand of Chief Justice Roberts here.  He’s trying to preserve the dignity of the court and he would like to have unanimous opinions,” said Ting.  “He negotiated this compromise just to get everyone on board so the Supreme Court could speak with one voice, heightening the respect of the high court and its decisions.”

 

Standard Podcast [ 10:34 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Austria Pays Immigrants to Leave

by

Austria has promised cash payments to migrants and immigrants if they return home. Austria is far less welcoming to refugees and other immigrants than some other European nations. According to Hot Air.com, Austria has refused to provide camps with food and declined to participate in a recent EU mandate concerning immigrant assimilation. Despite these crack downs, migrant camps still remain in the country. In an effort to push them out, Austrian authorities are offering 1 thousand euros to immigrants if they return home. The program started earlier this year, and the government has seen over eighteen hundred people leave as a result.  Authorities are now considering doubling the amount for those prepared to go home.

Share

Actual Immigration Enforcement, Ground Troops to Iraq & Syria? HuffPost Hysteria

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly for stating that he will enforce immigration laws, that criminals such as drunk drivers will be deported, and that we do need to secure the southern border.  They also sigh at reports that National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster reportedly wants tens of thousands of ground troops to finish the job in Iraq and Syria.  And they discuss the Huffington Post column urging the disenfranchisement of white men for a time in order to advance the progressive agenda, only to have HuffPost pull the piece because they weren’t sure who wrote it.

Standard Podcast [ 17:04 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Immigration Enforcement, FBI Tracked Trump Aide, Spicer’s Bad Day

by

Ian Tuttle of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer Attorney General Jeff Sessions for announcing he plans to vigorously enforce immigration law and recommend felony charges for anyone entering the U.S. illegally after already being deported.  They also react to reports that the FBI conducted surveillance on Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2016.  And they respond to Sean Spicer’s comments suggesting Adolf Hitler did not use chemical weapons in World War II and the media’s massive overreaction to it.

Standard Podcast [ 16:41 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Sheriff Clarke: ‘We Are A Nation of Laws’

by

One of the nation’s most outspoken law enforcement officers is praising the Trump administration for cracking down on sanctuary cities, slamming liberal politicians for protecting criminal aliens, and explaining what those criminals have done to his community far from the border.

Earlier this week, Attorney General Jeff Session announced the Justice Department would lower or eliminate federal grants to locales that fail to cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Sheriff David Clarke is thrilled.

“Finally, we have a president in Donald Trump, who appointed an outstanding attorney general in Jeff Sessions, unapologetic about immigration enforcement.  I am as well,” said Clarke, who is also author of the new book, “Cop Under Fire: Moving Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America.’

After years of lip service from both parties, Clarke says he is happy to see decisive action.

“Finally, we have somebody who’s going to get his arms around this thing, along with the Congress.  Congress has the constitutional authority to set immigration standards.  They’re going to have to take the test as well.  And you know what?  Congress is afraid to deal with this issue because it’s explosive,” said Clarke.

Despite the warning from Sessions about lost federal funds, mayors and police chiefs around the country say they won’t budge.  Clarke sees that as a dereliction of duty.

“These mayors out there are abdicating their responsibility to keep their citizens safe.  This is nothing more than aiding and abetting criminal activity when you start to harbor criminal illegal aliens,” said Clarke.

Opponents of the Trump policy, such as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, often stake their positions on America’s history of welcoming immigrants seeking a better life, without distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration.

Clarke says that distinction matters.

“You got a guy in Donald Trump, the president of the United States, who’s actually going to enforce the law.  That is a shock to some people.  But we’re a nation of laws.  People want to say we’re a nation of immigrants.  No, we’re not.  We are a nation of laws.  We are a nation of lawful immigration,” said Clarke.

The sheriff also emphasizes that all the mayors and law enforcement officials are being asked to do is deal with criminals who are in the U.S. illegally.

“I’m not talking about immigration in general and not even illegal immigration.  I’m not giving it a pass, but I’m focusing on criminal illegal aliens.  I think it’s a good place to start because these individuals have no business in the country.  Many of them have been deported over and over and over again only to return, which shows the border is porous,” said Clarke.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is nowhere near the southern border, but Clarke says the effects of illegal immigration are having a very real impact on his community.

“We had a case several weeks ago of a criminal illegal alien (with a) criminal history.  He was not deported because of the catch and release policies that have gone on,” said Clarke.

“In a domestic violence situation, he pointed a forearm at his girlfriend, threatened his girlfriend, pointed a firearm at his two young kids and threatened them as well,” said Clarke.

He says that’s just one of many crimes and tragedies linked to illegal immigration in Milwaukee County.

“We’re talking about murders.  We’ve had criminal illegal aliens involved in drunk driving incidents in Milwaukee County who would have killed other motorists.  We’ve had robberies.  We’ve had sexual assaults.  We’ve had incidents of child abuse,” said Clarke.

Unlike officials in sanctuary cities, Clarke says he fully cooperates with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, in rooting out criminals in the country illegally.

“I work with ICE and ICE officials have access to all of my booking data.  They look at it every day and they decide who they’re going to give a further look at.  I don’t tell them, ‘Look at this guy and this guy.’  They’ll decide and then they’ll call and tell us, ‘Hold onto this guy or this guy.  We want to do some further investigation to see if this person is in the country lawfully,” said Clarke.

One of Clarke’s greatest frustrations is the lack of hard data on criminal illegals.  He says it’s something liberals deliberately want to keep fuzzy.

“We don’t know the extent of the problem because data isn’t being collected on crimes involving a criminal illegal alien.  It’s funny how, in this country, the left demands that we collect data on all traffic stops involving black motorists.  We actually collect that data.  There’s a box you have to check and a form you have to fill out,” said Clarke.

“All of a sudden now when we want to collect data, so we have some accuracy as to what’s going on with this problem, they don’t want anything to do about it,” said Clarke, who praises Trump for ordering the collection of data on crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

Clarke is taking steps to prepare his department to offer even more cooperation.

“I’m going to help ICE.  I’ve applied for the 287 (g) program, which, after training, will deputize my law enforcement officers with immigration enforcement,” said Clarke.

“We’re not going to be doing home raids and we’re not going to be doing workplace raids and school raids like the left likes to portray as the sky is falling and the bogeyman propaganda.  I’m going to focus on going after criminal illegal aliens, who have been arrested for some very serious crimes, deported previously but got back in,” said Clarke.

“Once they get that border sealed, the next time we get them out , we’ll be able to keep them out,” said Clarke.

Standard Podcast [ 18:05 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Three Martini Lunch 3/2/17

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss Democrats killing their own goal of immigration reform by refusing to work with Trump.  They also discuss Attorney General Jeff Session and the significance of his comments under oath about Russian communication with the Trump campaign.  And they discuss the new interior secretary’s first commute to work and comments from a GOP House member that may come back to bite him.

Standard Podcast [ 18:22 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Three Martini Lunch 2/28/17

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are encouraged by some of the budget tightening the Trump administration wants to do but are concerned that there seems to be no appetite for entitlement reform.  They also wonder why George W. Bush is coming forward to criticize Trump after virtually eight years of silence on the Obama administration.  And they have fun with Sen. Tom Udall’s suggestion that the Senate confirm Neil Gorsuch AND Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

Standard Podcast [ 23:00 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

‘He Hasn’t Been Keeping Up With the News’

by

Former President George W. Bush indicated he considers President Trump’s recent executive order a “Muslim ban” and opposes efforts to infringe upon anyone’s freedom to worship, an analysis that one immigration experts suggests is evidence Bush doesn’t know what is in the policy and is continuing with his narrative that anyone killing in the name of Islam cannot be a Muslim.

Bush appeared on NBC’s ‘Today’ show to promote his new book, “Portraits of Courage,” but soon found himself immersed in a conversation about the president, the press  and Trump’s temporary pause on immigration from seven nations suffering from the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism.

‘Today’ host Matt Lauer began the discussion of the executive order by quoting Bush’s positive portrayal of Islam following the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

“That’s very different talk than what we’re hearing today about a Muslim ban,” said Lauer.  “Do you think the president’s position on this has been well thought out?”

“It’s important for all of us to recognize one of our great strengths is for people to worship the way they want to or not worship at all.  A bedrock of our freedom is the right to worship freely,” Bush responded.

Bush later said he supported an “immigration policy that is welcoming and upholds the law.”

Center for Immigration Reform Executive Director Mark Krikorian says Bush’s focus on the freedom to worship suggests he’s not all that familiar with Trump’s executive order.

“He still misunderstands what the struggle is and specifically about the travel ban he didn’t push back against Lauer’s comment that this was a Muslim ban.  How can it be a Muslim ban if it only covers 10 or 12 percent of the world’s Muslims.  He hasn’t been keeping up with the news and he really shouldn’t be commenting on it if he hasn’t,” said Krikorian.

But Bush wasn’t done.

“I understood right off the bat, Matt, that this was an ideological conflict and people who murder the innocent are not religious people.  They want to advance an ideology,” said Bush.

Krikorian says Bush sees the threat in much the same way former President Barack Obama does.

“Even President Obama made these points about how if you’re a terrorist killing innocent people, you’re not religious.  Well, that’s completely misunderstanding what it means.  Who are we to say that a terrorist acting in the name of Islam doesn’t understand what Islam is?” asked Krikorian.

“Former President Bush would have been correct in saying that sort of violent perspective on Islam is not the only way to see it, that there are many Muslims who reject it.  But he steps over the line, and Obama did this too, when he said that other perspectives of Islam that see it legitimately as killing infidels are not really Islam,” said Krikorian.

Krikorian is also keeping a close eye out for Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from the seven nations with significant terrorism problems.  He expects the new order to carve out exceptions for anyone holding green cards.

He says the massive fight over the order is largely a distraction from the real fight over which branch of government gets to establish immigration policy.

“It’s only 90 days for seven countries.  What this is really about is whether the elected representatives of the people or the judges get to decide who moves to the United States,” said Krikorian, who says the statutory power clearly gives authority to Congress, which allows the president to ban any alien or class of alien he wants.

He says the left wants that power to be in the hands of judges.

“This is something that the anti-borders people, whether on the right or on the left, have been pushing for for years, where every single visa decision – everything – would be decided by judges ultimately.  That’s not what the law says,” said Krikorian.

“The courts suspending that old executive order were acting lawlessly.  It was literally an illegal act by those judges,” said Krikorian.

Standard Podcast [ 11:23 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share

Three Martini Lunch 2/10/17

by

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are thrilled to see Tom Price confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services.  They also discuss the numerous problems with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the Trump immigration order.  And they slam CNN’s Chris Cuomo for asserting that accusing a journalist of fake news is the equivalent of using the N word.

Standard Podcast [ 14:12 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Share