AOC Call For ‘Prison Abolition’ May Have Potential

A common characteristic of the 2019 news cycle is that it is often difficult to distinguish reality from satire. The glitch in the matrix that is 2019 often blends the two together in a way often makes satire seem more real than reality while reality can seem totally unreal. Figures from both sides of the political spectrum are included in this phenomenon, but Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most prevalent players in today’s surreal news cycle.

Last week, AOC figured prominently is a story that claimed that climate change alarmists thought it would be necessary to eat babies for humanity to survive. The “baby-eater” story turned out to be a hoax, but, not to be topped, AOC returns with a series of tweets from her personal verified Twitter account in which she advocates “prison abolition.”

On Monday, AOC tweeted that “mass incarceration” needed to be replaced by “decarceration & [sic] prison abolition.”

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1181196457145225216?s=20

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1181198160045195269?s=20

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1181207065072676864?s=20

Okay, you may think, we do incarcerate too many people in this country. But what about the tens of thousands of violent criminals who would go back to committing violent crime on us ordinary law-abiding citizens if they were decarcerated?

Well, AOC has an answer to that, by which I mean that she does not actually have an answer. “Our lawmaking process means we come to solutions together,” she tweets, kicking the can down the road.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1181207079190708224?s=20

AOC’s non-solution is reminiscent of Will Rogers’ suggestion in World War I that the ocean should be boiled to deter German U-boats. When asked how this could be accomplished, Rogers replied, “I’m just the idea man.”

AOC is evidently just the idea person, leaving the implementation and practical problems to others.

Allow me to make a suggestion on how to handle decarceration and prison abolition. In the 1981 film, Escape From New York, the entire island of Manhattan was converted into a maximum-security prison. While the movie was considered science fiction at the time, maybe the idea of walling off large areas and using them as free-range prisons has finally come. We can quibble over what parts of the country would be best suited for conversion to prisons, but I submit that New York City has the infrastructure and capacity to house the nation’s criminals well into the coming decades.

The plan has something to make everyone happy. Conservatives get to keep violent criminals off the streets (of other towns anyway). Liberals get more humane conditions without cages. Average Americans get to not have their streets flooded with drug dealers, rapists, and murderers. Maybe we could even sweeten the pot by building a wall around the island of Manhattan for added security. That would help win support from Keynesians and Donald Trump.

There really isn’t a strong argument against turning New York into a prison. The city is past its prime and crumbling in many areas. The Statue of Liberty would be outside the prison area and New York residents and pizza makers could be transplanted to much nicer parts of the country (just NIMBY, although I will take a New York pizza shop). We could even let AOC keep her old district.

I know I said before that AOC was a major player in the surreal news cycle, but maybe she’s on to something here.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Elizabeth Warren Is Revolting

Elizabeth Warren is revolting. No, not that way. She's leading a rebellion against moderate Senate Democrats. A partial rollback of Dodd-Frank regulations has enough bipartisan support to give it a real chance of passage and Sen. Warren (D-Mass.) doesn't like it.

Warren sent out a fundraising email attacking the Democrats who supported the banking reform bill. The email led in turn to a contentious meeting of Senate Democrats. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.), who doesn't officially support the bill, has not been vocal in his opposition. Schumer reportedly urged Warren to temper her criticism by focusing on facets of the legislation that she opposes rather than engaging in intraparty warfare.

“This is what I said I was going to do,” Warren reportedly told Schumer per Politico sources. “This is why I ran for the Senate.”

The bill, officially titled the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act,” but dubbed the “Bank Lobbyist Act” by Warren, has done what Republicans have been unable to to accomplish in other areas: split the Democrat caucus. The bill, which is favored by housing industry groups, counts 12 moderate Democrats among its cosponsors, more than enough to ensure cloture and passage.

The schism between leftist and moderate Democrats could easily lead to an intraparty rivalry similar to what Republicans experienced during the later Obama years. Moderate Democrats may find themselves pitted against the party's left wing and derided as “Democrats in name only” who are not liberal enough. It's easy to imagine Warren, the leftist stalwart, in the role of Ted Cruz, vying for the reins of the party and trying to steer it toward the left and away from compromise.

The problem for Democrats is that a strategy of going left is likely to have disastrous electoral consequences. Doug Jones in Alabama and Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania have demonstrated that moderate Democrats can be competitive in deep red Trump country, especially if Republicans continue to nominate flawed candidates, but the Warren strategy of forcing these moderates to the hard left after they are elected would invariably lead to a Republican wave similar to 2010 and 2014.

Schumer seems to realize this. His decision to allow moderates to work on the bipartisan bill to reform Dodd-Frank may have been made with the upcoming elections in mind. The success of the bill would allow moderates to crow about a positive accomplishment rather than being forced to run on opposition to President Trump.

DNC Chair Tom Perez hinted at a similar strategy in a recent segment on CNN. When asked about a Conor Lamb ad in which the candidate distanced himself from Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Perez replied, “Listen, Democrats are going to do what they believe is best to win their races.”

Dana Bash then asked, “So you don't think that Nancy Pelosi is a drag on Democrats in tough races?”

Perez deflected the question, but the answer is obvious. “San Fran Nan,” who isn't even popular with liberals these days, would be the kiss of death for moderate Democrats in red or purple states.

Democrats hope for a “blue wave” this November, but to make that a reality they will have to nominate candidates that are a good fit for the local electorate. Candidates for swing states will need to be more moderate than the Democratic Party at large and may not fit with the liberal orthodoxy on issues like guns, taxes and especially cultural matters such as gender and abortion. This is a recipe for conflict down the road.

The paradox of winning a majority is that Democrats will find that a larger congressional caucus means that the party is more moderate. While the Elizabeth Warrens of the left may not like this move to the center, to force representatives of swing districts into hard left voting patterns would mean that any majority would be short-lived.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Obamacare Reform Is Looking Doubtful This Year

If you’re wondering whatever happened to the Republican health care reform bill, you are not alone. When we last heard from the American Health Care Act, House Republican leaders were waiting on the Congressional Budget Office to score the bill before submitting the legislation passed in the House to the Senate. The CBO scored the bill in late May, but the silence from the Republican ranks has been deafening. The congressional website does not show any action on the bill since it passed the House on May 4.

Readers of The Resurgent are aware that the Republican health care bill falls short of full repeal. Senate rules require 60 votes for cloture on a repeal bill and Republicans would not be able to find eight Democrats to join them in ending a Democrat filibuster. Even if Republicans eliminated the filibuster entirely, they would not have enough votes for full repeal because at least four Republicans have pledged to oppose a repeal bill that does not provide for a phase out of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

Now some Republicans are saying that it is doubtful that they will be able to pass even an incomplete health care reform bill. “I don’t see a comprehensive health care plan this year,” Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said in Politico. “It’s unlikely that we will get a health care deal, which means that most of my time has been spent trying to figure out solutions to Iowa losing all of its insurers.” Burr serves on the Senate Heath, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

In the Wisconsin State Journal, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) agreed that the first priority to would probably be to act to preserve the health insurance markets in their current form. Johnson said that a short-term “market stabilization” bill could be passed that would fund the Obamacare exchanges with billions of dollars to help prevent insurers from exiting the marketplaces. Such an approach would reduce volatility in the Obamacare markets and buy time for Republicans to agree on a reform bill.

“To me, this may be a two-part process. I would admit that’s probably a minority view in the Republican Senate right now,” Johnson said.

Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) also tried to tamp down expectations. “There are some still saying that we’ll vote before the August break,” he told the Washington Post. “I have a hard time believing that.”

The fundamental problem is that conservative and moderate Republicans do not agree how to handle various aspects of the health care issue. Although Republicans have been united in their desire to repeal and replace Obamacare since the day it was passed, they disagree on the details of what should come next.

In the eight years since Obamacare became law, Republicans such as Tom Price, formerly a Georgia congressman and now Secretary of Health and Human Services, have written legislation to repeal Obamacare and reform the health insurance industry, but the party has not coalesced around any single bill. When Donald Trump eked out a squeaker of a victory in the Electoral College, Republicans were caught flat-footed and did not have a plan for how to exploit his victory. Indications were that, as late as early February, Republicans had not even started writing an Obamacare reform bill. The Senate considers the House bill dead on arrival and is writing its own version of health care reform, which may be available as early as this week.

President Trump’s antics are also hurting the possibility of passing a health care bill. The investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible connections with Russia and the firing of FBI Director James Comey are distractions that make it even more difficult to find a compromise that is acceptable to all GOP factions. The president showed leadership in the fight to pass the AHCA in the House, but has largely been missing-in-action on the issue in the month since the House vote.

Not all Republicans are pessimistic on health care. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) was quoted in The Hill as saying, “We do need to take care of our business, and I think you mentioned healthcare, and that's certainly front and center in the United States Senate — something we're going to have to get resolved here in the next few weeks.” Cornyn said that he thought a Senate bill would be “done by the end of July at the latest.”

Repeal of Obamacare has been the centerpiece of the Republican platform since 2010. The fact that repeal is not possible, even with Republican majorities in Congress and a Republican president, is not going to please most Republican voters. If the new Republican administration leaves Obamacare completely intact, it may well face a mutiny from the grass roots.

 Originally published on The Resurgent

New Cruz? Texas Senator Works For Health Care Compromise

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has developed a reputation as a firebrand. Cruz has made refusal to compromise a trademark of his career in Congress and has often had strong words for fellow Republicans who disagreed with him on strategy. Now a new behind-the-scenes report by the Wall Street Journal reports that Cruz may be turning over a new leaf.

The Journal reports that Cruz began working quietly with moderate Republicans to find a consensus on health care reform that has a realistic chance of becoming law. Cruz was instrumental in forming a working group of 13 Senators that had its origin in a February steak dinner with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). The group includes Republicans concerned about the effect of an outright repeal of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and pre-existing conditions rules such as Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Cory Gardner (R-Col.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah). Cruz has reportedly been working with House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mike Meadows (R-N.C.) for the past month.

Senators on both sides of the aisle expressed surprise at Cruz’s new strategy. “It’s a ‘you live long enough, anything can happen’ moment,” said Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“It would be a first for Sen. Cruz,” noted Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

The GOP’s 52-vote majority in the Senate means that Republicans can lose no more than two votes and still be able to pass an Obamacare replacement. A defection of two Republicans would require Vice President Mike Pence to cast the tie-breaking vote. At least five Republican moderates are considered to be doubtful in their support for the American Health Care Act.

The working group is expected to be vital in bringing various Republican factions in the Senate together to forge a compromise that can replace as much of Obamacare as possible. Cruz’s participation and support may help bring other conservatives such as Mike Lee and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on board with the Republican reform effort.

In the past, Cruz has had difficulty with consensus building and passing legislation. He is perhaps most well-known for his role in the 2013 government shutdown and attempt to defund Obamacare. With Republicans outnumbered by Democrats, the shutdown failed to halt the implementation of President Obama’s namesake health bill. Cruz was also known for failed attempts to prevent an increase in the debt ceiling and compromise spending bills under the Obama Administration.

Cruz may be realizing that the role of majority party senator is very different from that of one who serves in the opposition. When a party is in power, it is expected to deliver results in the form of advancing its legislative agenda. It is not enough to just say “no” when your party controls both houses of Congress and the White House.

“They’re giving him a leadership role and he’s going to have to make the most of if it,” said Rick Tyler, who served with Cruz’s presidential campaign. “If he can pull it off it’s a huge victory. But it’s fraught with danger.”

The upside for Cruz would be an enormous amount of prestige and notoriety if he shows an ability to build a coalition to pass a landmark reform bill. The boost for Cruz could potentially reach beyond his normal conservative base and lay the groundwork for a second presidential campaign in 2020.

Without the support of Cruz and other Senate conservatives, a reform effort would necessarily have to reach across the aisle to Senate Democrats. That would mean fewer conservative reforms in a watered-down bill. The alternative would be to delay reform until after the 2018 elections or until health insurance markets become so dysfunctional that the public demands action.

A potential pitfall would be alienating the conservative base whose expectations are for a full repeal of Obamacare. Even though Republicans do not have the votes for a full repeal, Mr. Cruz has helped stoke those expectations over the past few years. Many conservatives view anything short of full repeal to be a betrayal. Cruz must help the party overcome that view and sell the reform bill to the conservative base.

Health care reform gives Ted Cruz an opportunity to break out of his stereotypical role as a roadblock in the Senate. If Cruz can prove that he has the ability reach out and build a working majority with senators who don’t share his views, it would represent a major milestone in his career make him an even greater force in the Senate.

Originally published on The Resurgent

AHCA is best chance to replace Obamacare in our lifetime

The House of Representatives finally passed a bill to gut Obamacare and many conservatives are upset. Admittedly the bill is not full repeal. It is far from perfect. If I was going to write a health care reform plan, the American Health Care Act would not be it. Still, I’m very glad that the House passed the bill and I fervently hope that the Senate moves the legislation forward. Why? Because it is the only health care reform that has any chance of passing.

Many myths have grown up around Obamacare and the Republican repeal and replace effort. Over time, we have forgotten that Obamacare was not passed by a budget reconciliation. “HR 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” was passed on Christmas Eve 2009 after a cloture vote by 60 Democrats ended a Republican filibuster. It was a traditional bill that requires a traditional bill to repeal.

So, what was the controversy about the budget reconciliation? After Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was elected to the Senate, the Democrats could no longer break Republican filibusters. If the Democrat-controlled House amended the ACA, it would be subject to another cloture vote, which the Democrats would lose. The answer was to have the House pass the bill unchanged and use the budget reconciliation process to pass a second bill, “HR 4872, The Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act,” by a simple majority vote. This bill was subject to the same limitations that the GOP now faces in passing their own budget reconciliation.

Even though Republicans hold the presidency and control both houses of Congress, they were not granted a blank check by voters. A full repeal would require 60 votes for cloture in the Senate and there are only 52 Republicans. The mathematical problem is obvious.

But what about the 2015 repeal bill that was vetoed by President Obama, you may ask. Republicans didn’t have 60 votes in 2015 either, but they passed a repeal bill then. Why can’t they do it now?

The answer is that the 2015 repeal bill was not a full repeal either. The 2015 bill, was also a reconciliation bill that carried the unwieldy title, “HR 3762 To Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Section 2002 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016.” The text of the bill states in Section 102 that the ACA “is amended,” not repealed.

If the 2015 bill was better that the AHCA of 2017, it is for two reasons. First, there were 54 Republicans in the 114^th Congress where there are only 52 now. The GOP could afford to lose more votes in the Senate in 2015 that it can today.

Second, four Republican senators who voted for the 2015 bill now say that they won’t vote for a bill that does not provide for a phase out of the Medicaid expansion. Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio,) Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) refuse to back the same bill that they voted for two years ago. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted against the 2015 bill and would presumably do so again. Other Republicans are reluctant to repeal the popular provision concerning pre-existing conditions. It is these five senators and House moderates, not the Republican leadership or President Trump that are forcing a more watered-down version of the bill.

Some conservatives suggest that Republicans should get rid of the filibuster to pass a repeal. We wouldn’t need 60 votes then and the Democrats will probably kill it anyway the next time they have a majority, they argue.

The problem with this strategy is that full repeal could not even win a simple majority vote. The five Republican defectors in the Congress and the Tuesday Group of 50 Republican moderates in the House would kill it.

Removing the filibuster would also mean that Democrats would only need simple majorities to replace Republican health care reform with a national single-payer system the next time they control both houses of Congress and the presidency. It would also usher in a host of other bad ideas from gun control to a higher minimum wage to higher taxes to onerous regulations on practically everything. It is true that Democrats might one day choose to remove the filibuster, but it is certain that if Republicans remove it now, for no strategic reason, Democrats will have a field day when they return to power.

What, then, are the options for Republicans on Obamacare? One option is to wait and hope for a filibuster-proof majority. If you favor this option, be aware that the last time that Republicans had a 60-vote majority was the 61^st Congress from 1909 to 1911. It is extremely likely that before the Republicans get a supermajority, Obamacare will implode, health insurance premiums will skyrocket, insurance companies will cancel policies and hell will freeze over. I have little doubt that if Republicans hold out for the perfect, full repeal bill that I will die of old age with Obamacare still intact. (I’m only 45.)

Waiting until 2018 might give the Republicans a few more votes to craft a better compromise. It is also possible that two years into the Trump Administration, voters might deliver a rebuke to Republicans in the form of Democrat majority in either the House or Senate that makes any sort of conservative impossible. In any event, it is doubtful that the numbers would change enough in the GOP’s favor to justify putting off a cornerstone promise of the campaign for two years. The longer Republicans wait to take action, the more entrenched Obamacare will become.

A better option is to take baby steps toward the full repeal of Obamacare starting now with the AHCA. The current bill has the support of moderates as well as the Freedom Caucus and has decent chance of becoming law. While far from ideal, it is a reasonable bill that can hopefully be improved further in its journey through the Senate. Even if it became law in its current form it would mark a vast improvement over Obamacare.

The Republican reform bill should not be viewed as a final step, but as a first step toward total repeal. Without a supermajority, it may take years of nibbling at the edges of Obamacare to fully repeal the behemoth, but conservatives have to start somewhere. The logical place to start is the bill that has the support of the two disparate factions of the GOP. The only bill that has a chance of becoming law.

Conservatives must decide whether it is worth trading a chance to gut Obamacare now to wait for a perfect bill in the distant future. The answer should be obvious. We should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of good and the possible.

Seize the day and start saving American healthcare!

Originally published by The Resurgent

It's time to stage an intervention for Republicans

When I was growing up, a frequent trope on television sit-coms was to stage an intervention for characters whose destructive behavior was getting them into trouble. The episode would involve other members of the cast gathering together to show the character with the problem how they were destroying their life with the hope of convincing them to change their ways. This week, as the prospects for repeal and replacement of Obamacare grow ever dimmer, it is time for an intervention for Republicans.

Obamacare cannot be repealed.

There. I’ve said it.

As a popular meme series might put it, “Stop trying to make full repeal happen. It’s not going to happen.” At least for now, this is the hard truth for conservatives.

The truth is that Republicans don’t have the votes to repeal Obamacare. The Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act with 60 votes, enough to end the Republican filibuster two days before Christmas in 2009. Republicans also need 60 votes to stop a Democrat filibuster of a repeal bill. There are 52 Republicans in the Senate. You do the math.

Repealing Obamacare is not mathematically possible without at least eight Democrats crossing the aisle. Reforming Obamacare is possible through a budget reconciliation. That should be our goal. We should be talking about health care reform instead of repeal.

Ted Cruz (R-Texas) advocates the 2015 repeal bill that was vetoed by President Obama, noting that “Virtually every Republican in Congress voted for that language, and the parliamentarian has already ruled it as permissible.” This bill is also unattainable, however. Cruz fails to note that four Republicans who voted for the 2015 bill now refuse to vote for a bill without a phase out of the Medicaid expansion. The 2015 bill was also not a full repeal.

Otto von Bismarck said that “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.”

That is what Republicans should focus on: What is possible, attainable, and the next best thing to full repeal that can actually pass. That is going to involve the ugly art of compromise. Any bill that can pass is not going to be everything that the conservative and moderate Republicans have on their respective wish lists.

The question for Republicans is this: Is a compromise that reforms Obamacare but falls short of repeal better than leaving the current monstrosity in place in its entirety? The answer should be a resounding “yes!”

Repeal is the ultimate goal, but it is not going to happen within the next two years. The current, short-term goal should be to take baby steps toward fixing the health care mess that Obamacare created. If Republicans can create a policy compromise that makes things better for most Americans, then hopefully voters will trust them with a larger majority in 2018.

Even then, it probably won’t be a slam dunk. Sixty-seat supermajorities don’t come along often. This is especially true for the Republicans who last had 60 seats in 1911. As long as there is a filibuster, compromise and forging bipartisan majorities is going to be necessary to advance conservative legislation.

Conversely, the more dysfunctional the party acts, the less likely voters are to give Republicans more power.

Since the defeat of the AHCA, President Trump has realized that he needs some Democrat votes and has started reaching across the aisle. The question is whether conservative Republicans will be left behind in the new reality or whether they will use their influence to craft the best, most conservative bill that can pass. If conservatives don’t play ball with the “nonpartisan” president, they may well find a new reform law passing that is even less likeable than the AHCA.

There is no honor for Republicans in insisting on a perfect bill that will never become law. There is no honor in killing imperfect bills that can improve the lives of hardworking Americans. The honor for Republicans will be found in coming together and building a bill that both conservatives and moderates can say “yes” to.

Voters did not send Republicans to Washington with a blank checkbook. For better or worse, Republicans were given a slim majority and a president who is not a conservative. No one faction of the party can enforce its will on the others. To accomplish anything, Republicans must learn to work together and get beyond the “just say ‘no’” mentality.

Voters did send Republicans to Congress to fix the Obamacare mess. If the ACA cannot be repealed, then it should be reformed where possible. Republicans should roll up their sleeves and get to work doing just that. 

Trump pivots towards Democrats after health bill disaster

The White House issued a warning to Republicans yesterday. In the wake of the failure of the president’s health care reform bill, the Trump Administration signaled that it is willing to reach out to Democrats to advance its agenda if it can’t win support from the various Republican factions.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus underscored the potential shift in strategy on “Fox News Sunday” (quoted in the Wall Street Journal). “This president is not going to be a partisan president,” Priebus said. “I think it's time for our folks to come together, and I also think it's time to potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board as well.”

When asked if President Trump would move on from health care reform and allow the implosion of Obamacare to run its course as he threatened in a tweet, Politico notes that Priebus answered, “I don't think the president is closing the door on anything.”

“It's more or less a warning shot that we are willing to talk to anyone. We always have been,” he said in Time. “I think more so now than ever, it's time for both parties to come together and get to real reforms in this country.”

Since the decision to remove the AHCA bill from consideration on Friday, President Trump has alternately blamed the Democrats, blamed the House Freedom Caucus and reached out to Democrats.

The Washington Times reports that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was receptive to Trump’s overtures. “We Democrats, provided our Republican colleagues drop [repeal and replace] and stop undermining the ACA, are willing to work with our Republican friends — as long as they say no more repeal,” Mr. Schumer said. Schumer added in Time that, “if he changes, he could have a different presidency.”

With Republicans holding 52 seats in the Senate, virtually all reform legislation is subject to Democrat filibusters. A minimum of eight Democrats must cross over to kill the filibuster and allow a vote on any individual bill.

The Resurgent speculated in January that President Trump might forge a bipartisan coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans on a number of issues where the president’s platform is at odds with traditional Republican principles. During the campaign, Mr. Trump said that he wouldn’t mind being a “free agent” in his dealings with Congress.

The price for dealing with the Democrats on health care would be giving up the full repeal of Obamacare. Republicans currently don’t have enough votes for repeal, but many, including those in the House Freedom Caucus, would refuse to vote for anything less. The price of bringing Democrats on board other items in the Republican agenda, from tax reform to immigration, is likely to be just as unpalatable. The more the president moves to the left to appeal to Democrats, the more Republicans he will lose. The question is whether he can find a workable majority in the middle.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump will 'work something out' with DREAMers

Ms Phoenix/Flickr

In the interview with Time Magazine that accompanies his selection as the Person of the Year, Donald Trump raised eyebrows with a comment that he will “work something out” for illegal aliens who came to the US as minors. Trump had previously said that the illegal immigrants, known as “DREAMers” for the DREAM Act that would have given them a path to legal status, would have to be deported.

Trump told Time in the Nov. 23 interview, “I want Dreamers for our children also. We’re going to work something out. On a humanitarian basis it’s a very tough situation. We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud. But that’s a very tough situation.”

The DREAM Act was a bipartisan bill first introduced in 2001, but never passed into law. The law would allow illegal immigrants who entered the country before they turned 16 to apply for conditional resident status if they have five years of residency, earn a high school diploma or GED, show good moral character and pass background checks. Permanent residency could be granted if they serve in the US military or attend a higher education institution for two years. The DREAM acronym stands for “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors.”

Although the DREAM Act never became law, President Obama used Executive Orders to defer deportation for young illegals who have clean records. Obama’s Executive Order was the basis for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that gives some DREAMers exemption from deportation and two-year work permits. Trump said in the campaign that he would terminate the program.

The Texas Tribune profiled several DREAMers in a post-election article. Many came as young teenagers to be with parents who were already in the US. Jessica Azua was 14 when she came to the US illegally. Now, at 25, she is graduate of Texas A&M. Edgar Navarrete, now 22 and a student at the University of Texas at Austin, came to the US with his parents as a toddler and has no memory of his hometown in Mexico. Illegal immigrants who came to the US at a young age under the direction of their parents have no lives in their native countries to return to.

Trump has reversed position on immigration before. Before running as a hardliner on immigration, Trump told DREAM activists in 2013, “You’ve convinced me” according to NBC Latino. In August, Trump considered a new immigration position in the midst of the campaign before reversing his reversal. Even as he seems to consider a compromise on the DREAMers, Trump has appointed immigration hardliners to his cabinet.

Trump has said since the election that he still intends to build his wall, but other aspects of his immigration policy may be subject to change. During the campaign, he insisted on deportation of all illegal aliens, but has since said on “60 Minutes” that deporting violent criminals will be a priority, then “after the border is secured and after everything gets normalized, we're going to make a determination on the people that you're talking about who are terrific people.”

In the Time interview, Trump continues to call for a wall. “We’re going to build the wall. I’m going to build the wall. We’re going to have strong borders. But we’re also going to have people coming across the borders because we need workers.”

He also hints at other aspects of an immigration reform plan, which may see a change from the current family-based system to one that seeks to match immigrants to the needs of the US workforce. “We have to be able to have people come in to our country, because that’s good for all of us. It’s good for them, but it’s good for all of us. But we’re going to have very strong borders. We’re not going to have illegals coming in. But we’re going to have people coming in, but we’re also going to have them coming in based to a certain extent on merit.”

Deviation from his hardline deportation policy could cause a rift in Trump’s base, but might help more moderates to get behind Trump. Polling over the past few years has consistently shown that most Americans support a path to legalization for illegal aliens. Even exit polls of Republican primary voters, including many Trump voters, showed that the party was roughly split down the middle on the issue of legalization and that most opposed deportation of all illegals.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump flips on immigration

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Rumors are swirling that Donald Trump is prepared to reverse his stance on illegal immigration, the cornerstone of his campaign. The Trump campaign began last summer with rhetoric that focused heavily on Mexico and illegal immigration. Trump made his promise of a wall on the Mexican border the centerpiece of his campaign.

The rumors that Trump is flip-flopping on immigration began Saturday night with a Buzzfeed article. Buzzfeed cited three sources who confirmed that Trump signaled his willingness to soften his immigration stance in a secret meeting in the Trump Tower with the newly formed National Hispanic Advisory Council For Trump. The article stated that Trump did not use the term “legalization,” but had indicated that he was open to a solution to the problem of illegal immigrants “that respects border security but deals with this in a humane and efficient manner.”

Univision also cited three sources, some of which were also named by Buzzfeed. One source cited by both outlets was Jacob Monty, a Texas immigration lawyer. Monty said, “I really liked that Trump acknowledged that there is a big problem with the 11 million [undocumented] people who are here, and that deporting them is neither possible nor humane.” Monty claimed that the new Trump plan “wouldn't be citizenship but would allow them to be here without fear of deportation.”

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus confirmed to Univision that the meeting took place and that it was part of “our expansive effort to engage the Hispanic community.”

The reports sparked a quick denial from Mr. Trump. I'm not flip flopping," he told Fox News on the issue Monday. "We want to come up with a fair but firm process. Fair but firm.”

Trump and new campaign manager Kellyanne Conway were noncommittal on the specifics of the current version of the Trump immigration plan. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Conway replied “to be determined” when asked if Trump still advocated for “a deportation force removing the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants” in the US. Throughout the campaign Trump has been an immigration hardliner who called for the deportation of all illegal immigrants.

Univision also cited Helen Aguirre, an RNC spokeswoman who was present at the meeting. Aguirre confirmed that the Trump campaign was working on a new plan. “Trump was very categorical in saying that he's seeking a fair immigration reform," she said. "He wants to listen to everyone and announce his conclusions in the coming days."

By Sunday, Aguirre was reversing herself in a Breitbart piece. “Some folks talked about legalization, not citizenship, for the undocumented,” she said. “Mr. Trump did not say he was in favor of legalization. Some folks may have felt that he was open to it–and he gave zero indication of that.”

Aguirre told the Washington Post, “He listened to the comments and suggestions made by the various board members, but he never indicated what his immigration policy would be.”

Nevertheless, the comments by Aguirre and Conway confirmed that Trump’s immigration policy is changing. Conway said that “as the weeks unfold” Trump will reveal his new immigration plan. He is expected to address the topic this Thursday in Colorado.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

The scoop on birthright citizenship

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

When Donald Trump revealed his immigration policy this week, the aspect of the plan that got the most attention was his desire to deport the American-born children of illegal immigrants. Under current US law, children born in the United States automatically become US citizens. In his plan, Trump says that this policy, “birthright citizenship,” is the “biggest magnet for illegal immigration.”

Birthright citizenship is also called “jus soli,” which means “the law of the soil.” Like many aspects of American law, it has its roots in English common law. In Calvin’s Case, a 1608 ruling, the court determined that a Scotsman born under the reign of King James of Bible fame, whose rule united the kingdoms of Scotland and England, was also an English subject. The court found that “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth—a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection.”

The Naturalization Act of 1790, the first US law addressing immigration and naturalization, did not specifically address the citizenship of aliens living within the United States, but the fact that English common law subsequently became US common law was referenced in an 1866 federal circuit court decision in the case of United States v. Rhodes. Justice Noah Swayne wrote, “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.” The only two exceptions, Swayne wrote, were the children of ambassadors and the children of slaves.

The slave question had been raised nine years earlier by the Dred Scott decision, generally considered one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history. In that case, the Court ruled that slaves were not US citizens and struck down the ability of Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories.

Earlier, in 1830, the Supreme Court had specifically endorsed jus soli in the Sailor’s Snug Harbor case. The Court held that the infant son of a loyalist, born in American-occupied New York City, was a US citizen by birth, even though children born after the British occupied the city were not.

After the Civil War, the 13^th and 14^th amendments were passed to effectively overturn the Dred Scott decision. The 13^th amendment made slavery illegal while the 14^th amendment extended citizenship rights to former slaves and banned former Confederate officials from holding public office.

Section one of the 14^th amendment reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The first clause of the amendment specifically codified the traditional birthright citizenship of common law. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” hearkens back to Calvin’s Case and Justice Swayne’s decision in US v. Rhodes. Under this view, being born in a country automatically makes one subject to the laws and jurisdiction of that country.

Even before Donald Trump burst onto the political scene, some Republicans were challenging birthright citizenship for illegal aliens on the grounds that immigrants who were in the country illegally were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States government.

The Heritage Foundation makes this case by claiming that Senator Jacob Howard (R- Maine), author and proponent of the citizenship clause, specifically pointed out that Indians were excluded from citizenship because they owed their allegiance to their tribe and not to the nation even though they were born within the geographical limits of the United States.

Other historians point out that Howard also said that the 14^th amendment was intended to mirror the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Sen. Howard was also a strong supporter of this law and indicated that it was the basis for the 14^th amendment. The Act stated, “… all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States….”

Birthright citizenship has been established since 1898 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Ark was born in California to Chinese citizen parents. Ark moved to China with his parents after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, but returned to the United States, the only home he had ever known. Four years later, he visited his parents in China and, upon his return, was not allowed to enter the US on the grounds that he was not a citizen. 

The Supreme Court ruled that a child whose parents “have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.” Ark’s parents, who were citizens of China, were not excluded from being under the jurisdiction of the United States.

While the Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but the Wong Kim Ark case would seem to settle the question of whether having parents who are citizens of a foreign country would prevent birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court rejected this theory more than a century ago.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced a bill this year, H.R. 140, which would define a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as a US citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident alien residing in the US or an alien performing active service with the US military. By redefining the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction,” King and the bill’s proponents hope to legislatively end the ability of illegal aliens to anchor themselves in the United States with a native born child.

A possible problem with this strategy is that the second clause of the 14^th amendment reads “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….” King’s bill, which would effectively abridge the birthright citizenship rights of the children of illegal immigrants, might well be considered unconstitutional under the 14^th amendment.

With the present balance of power in Congress, King’s bill is unlikely to pass the Democratic filibuster. If it were approved by Congress, it would face a certain veto by President Obama. If it became law, it would almost certainly be challenged in court.

If King’s bill were ruled unconstitutional, the next step would be to amend the Constitution to change the 14^th amendment. A constitutional amendment must be approved by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. An amendment repealing birthright citizenship would have no chance of passing the current Congress where Democrats control enough seats to prevent the amendment from even being considered.

An alternative method of amending the Constitution is by a convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. At last count, 27 states had passed a call for a convention of states, seven short of the necessary number. An amendment proposed by a convention of states, also called an Article V convention, would still have to be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Only 13 states are needed to block an amendment and Democrats control more than enough state governments to prevent the redefinition of birthright citizenship.

Nevertheless, a number of Republicans have signed on to oppose birthright citizenship. Among the major presidential candidates, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindal have expressed support for redefining birthright citizenship according to CNN. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who had supported a bill to eliminate birthright citizenship as a congressman, now opposes the change.

As noted by NPR, birthright citizenship is practiced almost exclusively in the New World where populations are made up largely of immigrants. Only 30 of the world’s 194 countries provide automatic citizenship for babies born within their borders.

Any attempt to change the traditional US policy of birthright citizenship faces an uphill struggle. If the change somehow makes it through Congress, it is almost certain to be challenged and struck down by the courts. For the near future at least, birthright citizenship is here to stay.

Conservative immigration reform is best answer to Obama

When President Obama announced his unilateral version of immigration reform last week, he had several goals. The most obvious goal was to divide and demoralize the Republican Party in the wake of its overwhelming victory in the midterm elections. Just as important and ambitious, Obama hoped to strike a stake through the heart of a burgeoning movement among minorities to vote for Republicans.

The effect of Obama’s first goal is plain to see. Republicans are angry, but split over how to respond to Obama’s amnesty. Some conservatives are calling for a repeat of the disastrous government shutdowns of the past while others are once again calling for the president’s impeachment. The Republican leadership will have a difficult time reigning in the various factions of the party and presenting a coordinated and effective response.

President Obama’s second goal is an attempt to shore up minority voting blocs, in particular Hispanics, which have traditionally supported Democrats. More than a third of Hispanic voters cast their ballots for Republicans according to an Examiner analysis of exit polls from the 2014 midterms. In an era where the country is evenly divided, such a defection makes it almost impossible for Democrats to win. The president hopes that the Latinos will be sufficiently grateful for the amnesty to vote Democrat in the future. An over-the-top Republican reaction that could be portrayed as racist would also benefit future Democratic candidates as well as put Republicans on the defensive before the new Congress is even seated.

The Republican response to the president’s gambit should be in two phases. First, the Republicans should take a strong, principled stand against Obama’s executive action and explain to the country why his action is unconstitutional. Second, rather than just saying no, Republicans must present the country with a viable alternative.

The first phase, Republican resistance, should point out that the president does not have the authority to legislate his own immigration laws. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is already doing this by publicizing the 22 times that President Obama denied that he had the authority take unilateral action on immigration.

A Fact Check analysis of polls, points out that most Americans support immigration reform, but oppose the president’s unilateral version of it. Unfortunately, during the current lame duck session of Congress in which Democrats still hold a Senate majority, there is little that they can do to resist. With another funding crisis for the federal government looming in December, President Obama’s obvious and transparent plan is to goad Republicans into a repeat of last year’s disastrous government shutdown. Rather than walking into the president’s trap, the GOP should wait until January when they will have the upper hand.

When the Republicans take control of the Senate in January, there will be many more tools at their disposal to combat President Obama’s executive overreach. First and most obvious, Republicans will control the budgeting process. The Republican House can pass a budget that does not fund the president’s amnesty programs, but which keeps other parts of the federal government operating. This would put President Obama in the position of having to veto the budget and risk a government shutdown or accepting a defeat. While the 2013 shutdown was blamed on Republicans, the blame in this case would rest solely with the president, who would also be defending an unpopular position.

Second, the Republicans could refuse to confirm any of President Obama’s appointees until the president backs down. Unlike a government shutdown, few Americans would feel any effects of a halt to Senate confirmations. There would be no stories of closed parks, halts to government checks, or layoffs of federal employees. The Obama Administration itself would bear the brunt of the confirmation boycott.

Third, the GOP can file another lawsuit against President Obama. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws while the president is tasked with enforcing the laws Congress passes. While the president does have some limited discretion in enforcing laws, he does not have the authority to “adopt a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities” according to a Justice Department memo cited by The Volokh Conspiracy. Congress could sue to have the president enforce the laws as they are written. The downside to this strategy is that unless the Supreme Court agrees to expedited handling of the case, President Obama might be out of office before it is resolved.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Republicans have to come up with an alternative to the president’s action. There is an old saying that the best revenge is living well, but, in this case, the best revenge may be passing a conservative immigration reform bill. This is especially true if the bill can garner enough Democratic support to override an Obama veto.

A majority of Americans realize that the current immigration system is broken and in need of overhaul. In addition to unprotected borders, there is no system to track immigrants or visitors who enter the country but overstay visas. There is also no reliable way for employers to verify immigration status of their employees, even though Pew Research estimates that more than five percent of American workers are illegal immigrants. The legal process can take decades for immigrants who follow the law. Highly skilled workers who could benefit the U.S. economy are turned away to work for foreign competitors while unskilled laborers stream across the border.

It will not be enough to simply roll back President Obama’s executive action. The immigration problem and Democratic attempts to use it to divide the country will persist until there is meaningful reform. The Republicans must put forth a reform of their own to fill the vacuum. In addition to the border security measures favored by conservatives, reform must include a fair method of dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country. Most polls indicate that a majority of Americans favor a path to legality, although not necessarily a path to citizenship or amnesty.

A major problem for Republican leaders is convincing the anti-immigration members of their own party to support reform ideas that are popular with the rest of the country. The far-right members of the GOP scuttled immigration reform under President Bush and last year under President Obama. In so doing, they set the stage for the president’s unilateral amnesty. To these Republicans, any immigration reform is seen as amnesty and any Republican advocates for such reforms are denounced as RINOs. Republican leaders will have to work with leaders of the anti-reform caucus, notably Ted Cruz, in order to pass such a bill. President Obama is undoubtedly counting on such opposition from the right to put the Republicans between a rock and a hard place.

To pacify the right, immigration reform should definitely include strong border security provisions, but it must address the other problems with the current system as well. The carrot for illegals should be a tough but fair way of handling those already in the country if they come out of the shadows. The stick would be strong workplace enforcement and stiffer penalties for future illegal aliens. The legal immigration system should be streamlined to encourage prospective Americans to follow the law.

President Obama’s executive strategy is a desperate attempt to divide Republicans while raising the morale of the Democratic base after a humiliating defeat. If Republicans can wait until January and rein in their anti-immigration reform faction, they have a good chance of beating the president at his own game. The stakes are high. President Obama’s actions are an unprecedented attempt to circumvent Congress and the democratic progress that do not bode well for the future of the United States if left unchecked.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

How the Constitution allows Obama to decree amnesty

In the wake of the breakdown of congressional negotiations on immigration reform, President Obama has announced his intention at a White House press conference to “make some tough choices to meet the challenge -- with or without Congress.” Many observers believe that this portends new executive action on the part of the president to issue an amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. While there is doubt on the part of some that Obama can issue sweeping changes to the immigration system by Executive Order, the Constitution does allow the president to unilaterally issue an amnesty and his past actions prove that he would be willing to take that step.

Red State’s Dan Spencer points out that, as late as 2011, Barack Obama eschewed the notion that he could unilaterally change congressionally enacted immigration laws. The president said, “This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true…. There are laws on the books that I have to enforce.”

Less than a year later, Obama reversed himself and unilaterally halted deportations of young illegal immigrants. According to CNN, Obama’s election policy change applied to “people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and [who] were successful students or served in the military.”

Law professors John Yoo and Robert Delahunty argued that Obama’s policy change was unconstitutional. Under the Take Care Clause, the president has a constitutional duty to enforce the laws. Nevertheless, the policy has gone unchallenged since 2012 and has become de facto law.

The most obvious executive action by the president would be to simply enlarge his previous policy of stopping deportations for certain illegal aliens. There is no way of knowing what the terms of such a new policy would be, but it could conceivably include any illegal immigrants who do not have criminal records.

Another option that rests on a more firm legal footing would be for President Obama to simply issue a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens. As pointed out on the Wounded American Warrior blog, “amnesty” is defined as a pardon issued to a large group of individuals. Under Article II Section 2, the president has the constitutional authority to issue pardons to illegal aliens.

Observers ranging from Rush Limbaugh to the Huffington Post agree that issuing a blanket pardon to illegal aliens would be a constitutional course of action for President Obama. In the analysis of the Huffington Post, a pardon would not allow illegals to become U.S. citizens or legal residents, but it would remove the threat of deportation or other punishments. This would have the effect of leaving illegal aliens in a permanent legal limbo, able to continue their lives in the United States, but unable to access the rights of privileges of legal residency.

Such a blanket pardon is not unprecedented. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter issued a blanket pardon to hundreds of thousands of men who were accused of dodging the draft during the Vietnam War. Another controversial presidential amnesty was Andrew Johnson’s pardon of former Confederates after the Civil War.

A presidential pardon of illegal aliens would not solve the problem of illegal immigration. It would most likely make it worse by providing a new incentive for immigrants to enter the country illegally. Any permanent solution would still require congressional action. If this is true, why would President Obama take the step of issuing a unilateral amnesty?

The obvious conclusion is that President Obama believes that executive action on immigration will help Democrats in this year’s midterm elections. Obama’s halt to deportations was widely credited with helping sway Hispanic votes in 2012. Examiner’s analysis of 2012 exit polls found that immigration was the issue that most damaged Republican candidates. Aaron Blake of the Washington Post writes that executive action in 2014 might not be as effective as it was in 2012.

Rush Limbaugh theorizes that Obama might also issue pardons in an effort to goad Republicans into an impeachment attempt. Limbaugh believes that impeachment would unite the fragmented leftist coalition in defense of the president and cement a Democratic victory in 2016. Recently, Democrats have been using the prospect of impeachment as a fundraising tool.

With Congress in recess and the Democrats increasingly desperate with regard to their chances in November, the odds are good that President Obama will follow through on his threat to act on his own. At this point, the only certainty is that such a move would sow confusion in the upcoming congressional elections and further inflame passions on both sides in the immigration debate.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Follow me on Facebook or Twitter

The truth about Republicans and amnesty

Whenever the subject of immigration reform comes up, a charge that is certain to be bandied about is that Republicans are trying to foist amnesty on the country. Almost every Republican of note has been accused of supporting amnesty at some point in recent years. Are these charges true? What is the truth about the Republicans and amnesty?

First, what is amnesty? Merriam Webster defines “amnesty” as “a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free” or “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” Similarly, Merriam Webster defines “pardon” as the “act of officially saying that someone who was judged to be guilty of a crime will be allowed to go free and will not be punished.” Is this what prominent Republicans are advocating?

Perhaps no name is more synonymous with amnesty charges than John McCain. The Arizona senator has long been a proponent of immigration reform. During the George W. Bush Administration, McCain fought for the Bush-backed reform efforts of 2005 and 2007. Opponents accuse McCain of saying that “not granting amnesty” is a “stain on America’s honor” and that it will require “open borders” for Republicans to defeat Hillary in 2016 among other examples.

Both examples cited above from Breitbart include sources for their claims. In the first example, McCain was responding to a question. His unedited answer is as follows (starting at 43:30 on this video):

“I think that the Republican Party will never win another nationwide election unless we enact comprehensive immigration reform. That’s not the reason why I support this reform. I support it because there’s 11 million people living in the shadows in this country without the rights and privileges of citizenry and they’re being abused every day and they can contribute an enormous amount to our society just as the Irish and the Poles and the Jews and the Italians and every other wave that came to this country contributed to it.

“The point is that if you’ve got 11 million people living in this country illegally, there’s not enough buses to deport them, then it’s de facto amnesty…. You know, they’re not going home, okay? They’re not going home. And so why don’t we give them a path to citizenship, and my friends, if you look at that legislation, it is tough. It’s 10 years before they get a green card, thousands of dollars in fees. This is no amnesty. It’s really tough. But if you keep these people in the shadows in this nation, it is a stain on America’s honor. By the way, I am insistent on one thing and that is, when we pass it, and I still think we will one of these days, it will be named the Edward M. Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill.”

In his own words, McCain points out that the illegal aliens are not being pardoned, that they will instead pay thousands of dollars in fines and endure a 10 year waiting period. In the other example from Breitbart, it doesn’t even take a trip to the source link to determine that McCain never uttered the words “open borders,” but had again merely advocated immigration reform. The authors of the two pieces took it upon themselves to put words into McCain’s mouth, substituting the phrases “amnesty” and “open borders” for the more accurate phrase that McCain had actually used: “immigration reform.”

What is John McCain’s position on immigration reform? According to On the Issues, McCain has advocated securing the border first and then implementing a guest worker program. He supported Arizona’s immigration law in 2010. As noted earlier, he supports a path to citizenship, but not amnesty. McCain has voted to make English the official language of the U.S., to build a border fence, and against a bill requiring health care for illegal aliens.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is another frequent target of immigration reform opponents. He is often derided by his critics as “Lindsey Grahamnesty.” When it comes to backing up the charges that Graham is an amnesty supporter, again the evidence seems to fall short.

For example, a 2013 Breitbart article says that Graham said that “amnesty” was the only way to prevent a “demographic death spiral.” A closer look at the article, however, reveals that Graham ‘s words addressed immigration reform, not amnesty. Graham’s opinion has merit. While Republicans do very well among white voters, the share of white voters in the electorate has declined markedly. In the Obama era, Republicans have had a notoriously poor performance among minority voters and this has cost them elections. Examiner’s analysis of 2012 exit polls found that immigration was one of the most damaging issues for Republicans and may have cost Mitt Romney the election.

Marco Rubio, Florida senator and former darling of the Tea Party movement, is now often derided as a RINO and amnesty supporter. The break seems to have occurred in January 2013 when Rubio proposed an immigration reform plan that fell short of deportation for all illegal immigrants. Examiner noted at the time that Rubio’s plan called for securing the border as well as increasing legal immigration.

Rubio would have dealt with illegal aliens by encouraging them to come forward and undergo background checks. Illegals with serious criminal histories would be deported. Those with clean background checks would pay fines, back taxes, do community service work and be subjected to a long waiting period before they would be eligible for citizenship.

Another frequent target of the anti-amnesty crowd is Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman and Mitt Romney’s vice presidential nominee. Any linkage of Ryan to amnesty seems very tenuous. A January 2014 article on Twitchy claimed that Ryan “wants amnesty first, border security second. “ This claim is sourced to a Washington Post article that details a Ryan interview on MSNBC.

In the interview, Ryan says that under a House Republican plan for immigration, current illegals would be granted “probationary status to make sure that a person is not rewarded for having broken our laws and not preferenced over people who did follow the laws, meaning legal immigrants.” When asked if citizenship is on the table, Ryan replies, “What I’m saying is that you’ve got to make sure this isn’t amnesty.” Ryan goes on to say that “we feel very strongly about securing the border” and how Republican distrust of Obama means that “we need to write a law that he can’t avoid.” Ryan specifically rejects an amnesty.

More generally, a 2013 article by Rich Lowry in National Review asks, “Does the Republican establishment support amnesty?” Lowry promptly answers “you bet” and cites this article in Time. What Lowry neglects to mention is that the Republican National Committee resolution discussed in the article specifically rejects a pathway to citizenship while calling for increased border security and law enforcement patrols. The resolution called for work permits for current illegal aliens, but no citizenship and no amnesty.

Once again, it is apparent that the anti-immigration reform activists are taking words out of context and twisting the meaning to tar Republican representatives with the amnesty brush. Anti-reform crusaders might not believe that bills under consideration are harsh enough on illegal immigrants, but, by definition, they are not amnesty because they would force illegal aliens to pay fines and undergo background checks and waiting periods. As Ryan noted, Republican proposals also include a probationary period for illegal aliens who choose to come forward.

Republicans and Tea Party supports would do well to note the facts about Republicans accused of amnesty and question why those who fraudulently throw out the charge of amnesty feel the need to twist the facts and lie about their fellow conservatives. Politicians, talk show hosts and news outlets that sow such division should be remembered and avoided.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

If you disagree and would like to provide specific evidence about Republican support for amnesty, contact me on Facebook or Twitter

A common sense approach to immigration reform

By now it should be clear to everyone that the current immigration system is broken and beyond repair. Illegal immigrants flock across the border with seeming impunity. Businesses depend on the labor of these immigrants, even as many US citizens leave the work force or are forced to work part-time jobs. Even legal immigrants like the Tsarnaev brothers can travel between the United States and terrorist training camps abroad without the knowledge of federal authorities. Perhaps worst of all, at President Obama’s implicit invitation, many unaccompanied immigrant children have made a dangerous journey the southern border to throw themselves on the mercy of the American welfare state. A solution to these problems requires a common sense approach and a bipartisan compromise

Democrats and Republicans disagree on the solutions to these and many other problems faced by Americans. What’s more, the current balance of power in Washington in which Republicans control the House of Representatives and Democrats control the Senate and White House guarantees that neither party can force its own solution on the other. Many conservatives hold out hope for a Republican Senate majority after this year’s elections, but, even with the most optimistic projections, the GOP will not hold a majority large enough to override President Obama’s almost certain veto of a partisan immigration bill. The only viable solution to the immigration problem requires compromise.

To reach a compromise, leaders of both parties must overcome the angry voices of fringe elements of their base. Republican leaders answer the demagogues of the right who attack any attempt at immigration reform as “amnesty.” Democratic leaders must work around those on the left, including the president, who see immigration as a wedge issue with which to paint Republicans as racists and who would prefer to have open borders.

A wise man once said that a true compromise means that everyone is equally unhappy. In a compromise, both sides have to give up something. The thing that conservatives must give up is the notion that a border security bill must come before any other aspect of immigration reform.

There are two reasons that this is true. First, immigrant labor is needed by the businesses that make up a large part of the Republican coalition. Cutting off the supply of immigrant labor will only succeed in pushing these businesses toward the Democrats in spite of the left’s anti-business policies. Second, it is mathematically impossible for the GOP to pass a standalone border security bill with Democrats in control of the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House.

For their part, the Democrats must agree to enforcement triggers and border security provisions that cannot be reversed or ignored by the president or future Congresses. No one trusts President Obama to do the right thing on immigration. No one trusts Congress not to defund border security in the future.

Any immigration bill must include border security measures that would prevent a future influx of illegal aliens. In the age of terrorism, this is a national security issue rather than an economic one. Fencing is needed along much of the southern border along with increased numbers of Border Patrol agents. A better system of tracking legal immigrants who overstay their visas is also desperately needed. Like a standalone border bill, a bill that focuses solely on bringing current illegals into the system could not pass the current Congress.

Both parties must bend on how to address the problem of illegal immigrants already in the United States. Hard-line conservatives insist on deportation while hard-line liberals want a quick path to citizenship. The path to a compromise lies in the middle.

There are many reasons that deportation won’t happen. The American people are sharply divided with many polls showing a majority in opposition to deportation. Many illegal immigrants who came here as children don’t even speak the language of their native countries. Many adult illegal aliens have been here for years or decades and have established homes and businesses. In many cases, they tried to immigrate legally, but would have had to wait for years or decades. Public opinion will not tolerate families being split up as illegals are deported and legal resident aliens remain.

Public opinion also does not favor amnesty and granting citizenship to illegals. Most Americans agree that illegal immigrants did break our laws and must pay their debt to society. Although most Americans support a path or legalization or citizenship, such support is often contingent on meeting requirements such as passing a background check, paying back taxes and fines, and showing English proficiency.

The answer lies in the middle path of granting a measure of legalization to illegal aliens that is short of citizenship. This does not mean amnesty, which is a pardon or forgiveness for a crime. Under a path to legalization, which is supported by a majority of Americans as well as a majority of Republicans, illegal aliens would have to prove residency and show a clear criminal history, pay fines, and be subject to long waiting period before having any chance at citizenship.

This middle path would ensure that the punishment would fit the crime. Entering the United States illegally is a crime, but it is not a felony or a misdemeanor. According to the US code, it is an infraction akin to a traffic ticket and is punishable by a fine of not more than $250. Deportation or jail time is an excessive punishment for the crime of illegal immigration as currently defined by US law. This is especially true in light of the fact that illegal immigration has, for decades, been conducted with the tacit approval of both the US government and the American people.

The punishment for current illegal aliens must be severe enough to discourage future illegal immigration, but fair enough that illegals will choose to take part in the process rather than remain in the underground economy. There should be a grace period after which penalties for applying for legal status are more severe.

Conservatives must realize that if the current crop of illegal aliens are denied a fair chance at the American dream, their children will be birthright citizens who will bear a strong grudge against the Republican Party. If it is to remain relevant, the GOP cannot continue to write off large majorities of minority voters.

Once there is agreement on the major points of securing the border and how to handle illegal immigrants already in the US, agreement on other details should be easier to obtain. The law should be amended to elevate the crime of crossing the border illegally to felony status with automatic deportation for future illegal aliens.

In return for a secure border, legal immigration should be increased dramatically. Migrant workers should be encouraged to work in jobs that Americans won’t take as part of a guest worker program. Graduates of American colleges and universities with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math should automatically receive a visa with their diploma. Currently, many US educated students are forced to go abroad after they graduate where they take jobs that directly compete with American companies. It should be easier, faster and safer for an honest, hardworking immigrant to enter the US legally than illegally.

A strong majority of Americans believe that immigration reform is desperately needed. In the current climate of Washington, a bipartisan compromise is the only plan that has any chance of becoming law. A compromise bill that includes enhanced border security, a tough but fair approach to current illegal immigrants and an increase in future legal immigration should be able to win support of majorities of both parties and houses of Congress, while proving to the American people that the federal government is not totally and irretrievably broken.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner