visas

Double Afghan Debacle, Dems’ Big Tax Hikes, Warped Political Views

September 13, 2021 by GregC

Listen to “Double Afghan Debacle, Dems’ Big Tax Hikes, Warped Political Views” on Spreaker.

Join Jim and Greg as they chronicle how the U.S. likely killed a U.S. ally instead of ISIS-K personnel in the drone strike following the terrorist attack at the Kabul airport. And this news comes as the State Department stops processing special immigrant visa applications for our Afghan allies. They also hammer the Democrats for proposing $3 trillion in higher taxes to pay for their bloated, reconciliation bill full of terrible policies. And they sigh as more Democrats see Trump supporters and unvaccinated people as bigger threats than the Taliban or China.

Please visit our great sponsors:

Theragun
https://therabody.com/martini
Try Theragun for 30-days starting at only $199.

My Pillow
https://mypillow.com/martini
Get the new MySlippers at 50% off with promo code MARTINI.

‘The Law Is Very Clear’

February 6, 2017 by GregC

A former top immigration official says federal law is very clear in giving the President of the United States broad power over who is allowed into the country and points out that possession of a visa does not give permission to enter the United States.

The issue is still at a boiling point after Federal Judge James Robart placed a temporary restraining order on President Trump’s executive order pausing immigration to the United States from seven nations roiled by radical Islamic terrorism.

In his ruling, Robart said he was granting the injunction because the plaintiffs were likely to win in the merits and individuals and the states could suffer irreparable harm before the case is fully resolved.

Jan C. Ting served as Assistant Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Justice Department during in the George H.W. Bush administration. He now teaches at the Temple University School of Law. He says the law is clearly on Trump’s side.

“The law is very clear that Congress has authorized the president to decide. If the president finds the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he is authorized to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens or to impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate,” said Ting.

“It’s codified as Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212 (f). It’s also codified as 8 USC Section 1182 (f). It gives broad power to the president to exclude, basically, any aliens or non-citizens he chooses on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” said Ting.

He says this should be an open and shut case for the courts in the Trump administration’s favor.

“I think the courts, if they follow the precedents, have to come up with that result, and I hope they will,” said Ting.

Robart did not cite any constitutional provision or U.S. statute. The only court cases he cited dealt with his power to issue an injunction. Ting says the ruling was unconvincing.

“I didn’t find the temporary restraining order terribly persuasive. I thought the judge relied on generalities about the law and the Constitution and our customs and practices,” said Ting.

Prof. Ting is also taking aim at some of the legal arguments against the executive order, starting with the contention that anyone in possession of a U.S. visa has a right to enter the country.

“People need to understand what a visa is. All a visa is is permission to get on an airplane coming to the United States,” said Ting.

“If you don’t have a visa, you can’t get on the airplane, but the visa does not itself authorize anyone to come into the United States. They have to present themselves for inspection and the inspectors are authorized to turn people around, even if they have visas,” said Ting.

And that is why Ting says citing a 1965 law barring discrimination against aliens from a particular country doesn’t matter in this case. He says that law also focuses only on visas and not actual entry into the United States. He says Section 202 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act makes that clear.

“I think it’s clear that the 1965 language in 202 (a) does not apply to the inadmissability language in 212 (f),” said Ting.

Nonetheless, if the courts continue to rule against the Trump administration, Ting says it’s up to Congress to clarify statutory language even more to make sure the lew is being followed as the original lawmakers intended.

Standard Podcast [ 11:28 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The Problem with Puzder

December 16, 2016 by GregC

Many of Donald Trump’s cabinet selections are getting strong reviews from grassroots activists and traditional Republicans, but a leading immigration expert says Trump’s choice to head the Department of Labor could be a threat to American jobs.

Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian sees fast food titan Andrew Puzder as a problem across the board on immigration, but he says his biggest concern with a Puzder-led Labor Department is the influx of legal immigrants who could put American citizens out of work.

“The primary problem is you have to get the okay from the Labor Department before you can bring in one of these people on worker visas. There’s something like three quarters of a million people we bring in. These are people who are often directly replacing American workers,” said Krikorian.

“We saw this at Disney about a year-and-a-half ago. We just saw it with Carnival Cruise Lines, I think just this week. They fired their American workers, usually their IT workforce. They bring in foreign workers on visas that have been okayed by the Labor Department. And then (the American workers) are forced to train their replacements,” said Krikorian.

While that does happen with some frequency, Krikorian says the big picture is murkier and there are no hard numbers on how many Americans lose their jobs to legal immigrants.

“It’s never a one-to-one thing. You can’t say that one immigrant worker comes in and that means one fewer job for an American. The economy doesn’t really work that way,” said Krikorian. “There’s no way to say this guy lost his job because of that guy. It doesn’t work that way.”

However, Krikorian says it is clear which Americans are most at risk of losing their jobs through the importing of foreign workers.

“At the bottom of the labor market, and that means less-skilled workers and that means teenagers looking for work and others – people who get out of prison and want to clean up their act,” said Krikorian. “Anybody who’s getting on to the first rung of the job ladder. Those people are hurt by ongoing immigration,” he said.

So where does Puzder fit into all this? Krikorian says Puzder has long been an outspoken proponent of bring in foreign workers.

“Andy Puzder has for years shown himself to be a big fan of importing more and more and more and more foreign guest workers to compete with Americans,” said Krikorian.

He also sees Puzder as being on the wrong side of the most recent congressional fight over immigration reform.

“[Puzder supported] that Gang of Eight bill from a few years ago that would have amnestied illegal aliens – the one Rubio and Schumer and Obama were pushing. It would have amnestied illegal aliens, would have hugely increased legal immigration, almost doubled it, and supposedly would have enforced the law better at some point down the road,” said Krikorian.

He says Puzder also weighed in on immigration policy during the 2016 campaign.

“Just last year he made a press statement with several other people, calling on the Republican primary candidates to support so-called comprehensive immigration reform, in other words Obama’s immigration agenda,” said Krikorian.

In response to criticism of Puzder’s previous immigration pronouncements, the Trump transition is trying to assure skeptics they have nothing to worry about.

“A statement was issued under his name, which I think was pretty clearly written by the campaign, that said he would be tough in protecting American workers and that sort of thing. Maybe. I’m skeptical because his whole life has actually been the opposite so why would we believe in this sudden change,” said Krikorian.

Krikorian says Trump’s vision on legal immigration has always been a bit fuzzy but that the president-elect has made several strong promises.

“He’s always been kind of shifty on this and vague, but he has been very clear that these visa programs must never be used to replace American workers. And the law allows that now,” said Krikorian.

Other members of Trump’s cabinet who will deal directly with immigration issues are getting rave reviews, especially Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the nominee for attorney general.

“Jeff Sessions is a top pick. He has the potential to be the best attorney general in American history. I have great respect for Jeff Sessions. I think he’s going to be great across the board at the Justice Department, both immigration stuff and everything else,” said Krikorian.

Retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly is Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Homeland Security. Krikorian says Kelly is a well-known “border hawk” but isn’t sure how he will approach concerns over legal immigrants overstaying their visas or making sure businesses do not hire people in the U.S. illegally.

“I don’t have any reason to think he’ll be bad on that but he doesn’t have any experience on it so we’re going to have to wait and see how he does,” said Krikorian.

Krikorian admits Puzder will likely be confirmed by the Senate. It’s only then that America will find out if his new assurances or his old positions carry the day.

“Supposedly he’s seen the light,” said Krikorian. “We’ll have to see whether that’s true or not.”

Standard Podcast [ 8:12 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download