Eric Allie, Caglecartoons.com
Obama the Listener
Obama caught in a web
Obama’s Deportation Policy Ignores Most Illegal Immigrants
President Barack Obama’s immigration policy has left most illegal immigrants with clean records untouched, only focusing on illegals with criminal records and repeat border violators, a new study shows.
The study, conducted by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), found that around 95 percent of those deported met the national security requirements Obama stipulated, while only 5 percent, or 77,000, illegal immigrants were deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with no criminal record. MPI tracked the data from 2009 to 2013.
Although President Obama has stated that he will refine deportation procedures later this year, the report states that unless he modifies priorities, there will be no significant increase in deportation. Instead of worksite and random enforcement, the Obama administration has shifted significantly from the previous Bush, meaning that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) focuses mostly on the border, rather than interior areas. This is to ensure that deportation is more “human,” and for Obama, border enforcement helps to eliminate the climate of fear among already established illegals in the country.
Researchers argued that attempts to render deportation more human and reduce fear have actually lead to increased illegal immigration.
“In effect, the Obama administration has shifted from a more generalized model of enforcement to a model focused almost exclusively on illegal border crossers, obstructionists, and criminals…These policies allow for the exercise of discretion to not deport most people who fall outside these parameters,” the report noted.
Even with priority illegals, however, a recent study from the Center for Immigration Studies showed that in fiscal year 2014, ICE predicted that it would deport only 312,000 immigrants, a sharp drop of 25 percent from the amount ICE said it had funding to deport. In fiscal year 2014, ICE released 442,000 of 585,000 illegals it encountered, amounting to a stunning 75 percent release rate. No attempt was made by the agency to deport them.
ICE shot back, saying that some deportations cost more than others.
This article was originally published on the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Obama’s bungling of the Ebola crisis
Obama’s attempt to regulate private colleges rejected
The Obama administration has suffered a rebuke in its effort to regulate private-sector colleges, after a federal judge ruled that a proposed rule restricting bonuses for college recruiters was enacted without any proper evidence or justification for its existence.
The ruling is the second setback of its type for Obama’s Department of Education in three years.
Federal law has for decades banned educational recruiters from receiving compensation based on the number of students they enroll, in order to discourage aggressive sales tactics, fraud and other harmful behaviors. However, during the Obama administration a major push has been made to tighten this rule in order to prevent what the administration says are evasive practices.
In 2011, the Department of Education eliminated 12 “safe harbors” that allowed bonus compensation for recruiters in certain circumstances, including one that allowed for recruiters to receive bonuses based on how many students they recruited who graduated, rather than merely enrolled. The Association of Private Sector Colleges (APSCU) and Universities promptly sued, arguing the restrictions were illegal and offered without justification. In 2012 a federal court ruled on their behalf concerning the graduation bonus and ordered the Department of Education to provide better reasoning for its rules.
In its second attempt, the Obama administration argued that the graduation bonus was an effort to evade the ban on enrollment bonuses, since all students must enroll to graduate.
That reasoning doesn’t fly, wrote Judge Rosemary Collyer of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“If accepted, this rationale would allow the Department to ban all incentive-based compensation in higher education, as enrollment is always a necessary predicate to any assessment of program,” wrote Collyer in her ruling.
The Department of Education also attempted to justify the rule by claiming that recruiters were driving students towards shorter, less rigorous programs that they were more likely to graduate from, but which would help the students less than other programs. That might be true, Collyer said, but if it is, the federal government has provided no evidence that is the case.
“The Department does not identify factual grounds in the record for its concerns,” Collyer says. Even though it would have been “a simple matter” for the Department of Education to back up its claims more substantively, Collyer said, it failed entirely to do so, dooming its case.
Collyer also pointed out that federal laws concerning higher education are written with the explicitly stated goal of boosting graduation from postsecondary institutions. Incentivizing graduation would appear to help that goal, not hinder it, said Collyer, and the government had totally failed to explain how that was not the case. Nor had the government responded to an argument made by for-profit colleges that its rules would hinder the college graduation rates of minority students by prohibiting certain incentives to recruit them.
APSCU released a statement after the ruling saying it was “pleased” and requesting that the Department of Education to start its proposed for-profit college regulations from scratch. The Department of Education has not said what is planned response is.
This article was originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation
Embattled Democrats Silent On ‘Executive Action’ And AG
Four Senate Democrats facing tough reelection races recently voted against President Obama’s plan to take executive action on immigration.
But would they vote against an attorney general nominee who would implement such a policy? When asked by The Daily Caller News Foundation, none of them were willing to commit.
Senators Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire all cast last-minute votes with Senate Republicans in September to prevent the president from following through on his plan to grant millions of illegal aliens work permits by executive action.
Another embattled Democrat, Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, also cast a last-minute vote that ensured Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions’ amendment to deny funding for the president’s plan would fail. Those five votes were characterized as political maneuvering around a tough issue just ahead of an election. (RELATED: Sessions Leads GOP, Five Democratic Senators To Vote Against Obama Amnesty)
With a replacement for Attorney General Eric Holder likely to be named during the lame-duck congressional session following the election, senators will have a chance to weigh in on the issue again. Sessions has joined Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul in saying they would vote against any attorney general nominee who does not publicly disavow the president’s immigration plan.
When asked by TheDCNF, all four Senate Democrats who voted with Sessions on defunding the executive action plan declined to say whether they would also vote against an attorney general nominee who was in favor of it.
A spokesperson for Begich said the senator is against unilateral action on immigration from the president and does not support amnesty, but also declined to take a position on Sessions’ plan, saying he won’t comment on a hypothetical attorney general nominee.
“To me, securing our borders has to be the priority, and that should be the President’s focus,” Sen. Begich said in a statement. “I don’t support amnesty, and that is why the House must consider the Senate’s bipartisan solution so we can move forward with common sense reforms to fix the current broken system.”
The other three senators declined TheDCNF’s request for comment.
Hagan ran on immigration in 2008 and said last year she opposes amnesty. Landrieu boasted of voting against amnesty 9 times in a recent campaign ad, and Sen. Pryor also stated he is against amnesty in a campaign ad. An adviser to Shaheen told The Washington Post the senator does not support “a piecemeal approach by executive order.”
This article was originally posted on the Daily Caller News Foundation.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next Page »