Friday, April 28, 2017

Interview: Was Donald Trump's immigration order necessary? The Remembrance Project explains.

Story by Joseph Ford Cotto


After several years on the back burner, serious talk about enforcing immigration law finally returned – thanks to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. With his election, executive-level action was at long last taken.

Do not expect Congress to follow suit, however.

The last time a bipartisan consensus formed on immigration policy was in the then-majority-Democratic U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, it was centered around a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. Mercifully, this legislation did not get through the Republican-led U.S. House.

Among the GOP ranks, opposition to amnesty has solidified since Trump's victory and the 2014 midterm elections. Not long before Trump launched his bid, House GOPers rejected defense legislation because it would have provided for citizenship should an illegal serve in our military.


This move was met with strong criticism, including from center-right voices, which is what made it so commendable. When the rubber met the road, typically spineless politicians chose the more difficult, yet civic-minded, path. "The Honorable" gentlemen and gentlewomen indeed.

Still, kicking the can down the road no longer works. Illegal immigration has grown too vast and far too expensive. The time for legislative action is now, but it must be asked if said action will help or harm the situation.

Before anything else is mentioned, we must realize that the idea of rounding up and deporting illegal aliens en masse is unrealistic. The social consequences of this would surpass imagination, and there simply aren't enough law enforcement officers to do the job.

However, making citizens out of illegal aliens is a plan for abject failure. Not only would unlawful immigration be encouraged, but competition would soar for even the most menial of employment opportunities.

If one thinks it is difficult to build a good career in post-Great Recession America, just wait and see how hard it will be to make ends meet in post-amnesty America.

All too many illegal aliens have minimal interest in assimilating to our country's cultural norms and earn a substantial – yet illicit – salary through public assistance and/or government-funded private charities. Amnesty is not going to bring the average American any fortune whatsoever. Mitt Romney was onto something when he spoke about self-deportation.

Scores of Democrats support amnesty for building a permanent political majority. No small number of Republicans want a first-class seat on the gravy train as well; especially those whose constituents utilize illegal alien labor.

The Remembrance Project has seen all of this and then some. Its stated mission is "
(e)ducating and raising awareness of the epidemic of killings of Americans by individuals who should not have been in the country in the first place. Americans must come first in order to stop the permanent separation of families."
The Project is perhaps our country's loudest voice for victims' rights insofar as crime waged by illegal aliens is concerned. Its co-founders, husband-and-wife Tim Lyng and Maria Espinoza, devote a tremendous deal of time to raising public awareness about what their organization stands for. This has taken the Project behind the cameras of major media organizations and in front of legislators on Capitol Hill.

Espinoza and Lyng recently spoke with me about many issues relevant to American immigration policy. Some of our conversation is included below.


****

Joseph Ford Cotto: Immigration control is a concept with which most of us are familiar. Why, in your opinion, has it become such a political lightning rod?

Maria Espinoza and Tim Lyng:Immigration control is dictated through immigration laws, with strict criteria for entry, and specific annual limits.  To buy knowledge, immigration, as such is rather ignored by the media.  Now if you are refer to illegal aliens unlawfully entering the country, or overstaying visas (also illegal) you are talking about a different subject.    About which are you inquiring?  Please be specific, as to illegal aliens invading America or lawful immigrants. 

Cotto: What advice would you give Donald Trump in managing current immigration trends?

Espinoza and Lyng: President Trump is a brilliant man with a huge heart, and needs no advice from me. He is on the right track by stopping potential entrants from those nations which Obama also identified as harboring of terrorists.  I do not believe he has specifically made public his policy on immigration quotas.  When he does, I will gladly comment.

Cotto: President Obama used executive powers to, essentially, mandate his own version of the DREAM Act. His effort was ultimately found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Trump is now using executive authority to pursue his own beliefs on immigration policy. He too has run into trouble with the judiciary. Do you have any insight for him on how the presidency should be used regarding immigration matters?

Espinoza and Lyng: First, President Trump’s EO’s on restricting those persons from a narrow list of countries (much too narrow, in my opinion) with suspected or known terrorist ties from entering the US, is his right and his duty as President, per the U.S. Constitution.  The suggestion that it represents his “beliefs” would be more accurately stated that it reflects Trump’s correct understanding of the President’s Constitutional powers and Presidential responsibilities that his office demands, something that eluded Obama in many of his executive orders and actions, in my opinion.

Second, to compare what Obama did with his executive actions (on DACA and DAPA) to what President Trump is trying to accomplish with his executive orders is not intellectually fair.  As most Americans know, Trump’s EO was fashioned after the Obama EO restrictions placed on those same countries for those same reasons, without so much as a whisper from the mainstream dishonest media.  Further, no federal judges viewed this action as unconstitutional at the time, and no ruling was forth coming.  I certainly did not, nor would I ever, raise an objection to placing restrictions on countries that indoctrinate segments of its populations into violent Islamic jihadism, (mostly male children, teens and adults, a concept originating and commonly practiced in “Muslim” countries, in case no one has noticed yet).  These countries’ cultures encourage (and sometimes officially promote as a national policy) terrorism. And, yes, they obviously harbor Islamic terrorists.  Apparently, a leftist U.S. President, who was clearly sympathetic to Islam, is immune to judicial oversight than a Constitutionally acting one. 

Clearly, Obama overstepped his Constitutional powers, both because he was wrong from the beginning by trying to circumvent Congress, and because his appeal of Judge Hanen’s November 2014 ruling against him was eventually deemed unconstitutional, based upon arguments from both sides on July 10, 2015 in the 5th circuit court of appeals.

Unfortunately, there are many left-agenda-driven Obama appointed judges who disregard the Constitution in making their partisan judgements, especially in this matter.  They are clearly “activist” judges and should be removed from the bench by any legal means available; and today is not soon enough. Both judges who struck down President Trump’s EO’s on restricting entry from the 6 (or seven) countries are prime candidates, in my opinion.

No comments:

Post a Comment