I have come up with my own new term for Illegal Aliens in Amerika, Preferred Americans. They are preferred by our King and The Left much more than any ordinary Legal American.
They go out of there way to give them all the benefits of legal americans, and screw legal americans at the same time. They are focused on them.
They want them to have all the advantages of Legal Americans. Plus, they get preferential treatment on top of it. After all, how many Liberals would have called me a “racist” by now… 🙂
In 2013, a 16-year-old illegal immigrant from Honduras named Edwin Mejia arrived in the United States as part of the surge of unaccompanied minors. He was apprehended, entered into the immigration process, then promptly released into the country to live with a brother who was already here, according to The Washington Times.
Fast forward to January of this year, when an intoxicated Mejia illegally street-racing in Omaha, Nebraska, struck another vehicle driven by a young Iowa woman named Sarah Root, who eventually died from the grievous injuries she suffered in the crash.
Mejia was arrested and charged with vehicular homicide and officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were notified about the incident and asked to take custody of him. But ICE agents never arrived to pick up and deport Mejia, so he was eventually allowed to post bond on the homicide charge and promptly disappeared after being released from jail.
A letter from ICE Director Sarah Saldana to Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse about this very incident revealed that, in the opinion of President Barack Obama’s administration, such a crime didn’t warrant removal from the country for the homicidal illegal immigrant, even if he had been convicted.
Unacceptable: ICE has sat on our letter for a month. The Root family deserves justice & the public deserves answers. https://t.co/cd0Qpzfkzh
— Senator Ben Sasse (@SenSasse) March 29, 2016
In fact, Saldana stated that there was nothing in either administration policy or set law that would have required ICE to detain or deport Mejia.
However, she did admit that perhaps her agents should have taken the initiative to detain him regardless and suggested that going forward her agency would do a better job of evaluating the individuals it is asked to detain.
In other words, cover their political asses better to make the BS smell better next time.
Sasse was not pleased with the response, calling it “an embarrassment” and demanding to know who was responsible for deciding to not pick up Mejia.
“Why did ICE decline to detain Mr. Mejia, despite several requests to do so by the Douglas County Police Department? Were each of these requests denied on a case-by-case basis?” Sasse wrote in a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.
But Sasse is unlikely to get a better response from Johnson, as Johnson and Obama set the standards in 2014 that Saldana referred to in her letter about the failure to detain and deport Mejia.
“Even if he were convicted of the offense, motor vehicle homicide — driving under the influence, the conviction would not constitute a crime of violence under the immigration laws, and consequently, would not constitute an aggravated felony,” Saldana wrote. “The conviction would not render him subject to mandatory detention, nor would it significantly impact his eligibility to apply for relief or protection from removal.”
This is both absurd and intolerable. We already know that Obama has virtually thrown open the borders to allow in pretty much anybody who wants to enter, stating that only the most dangerous and violent would be prioritized for deportation.
We see now that our definition of dangerous and violent differs dramatically from that of the Obama administration, as an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and illegally street racing can strike and kill somebody but still be deemed as not dangerous or violent, and not worthy of deportation. (CT)
Among the many stories you won’t read in the mainstream media today is that the Ninth Circuit has just taken judicial amnesty a step further. It has ratified Obama’s amnesty by forcing Arizona to grant driver’s licenses to recipients of the DACA amnesty – a complete violation of both national and state sovereignty.
Here we have a state that was merely following the laws of the land, besieged by violence, drug cartels, and the crushing cost of illegal immigrants, yet the courts are elevating Obama’s lawlessness over state sovereignty (states control driver’s licenses) and congressional statutes.
Earlier today, a three-judge panel of the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction against an Arizona policy denying drivers licenses to DACA recipients. That initial injunction was ordered by a Republican-appointed judge, which tells you the insufferable judiciary is a bipartisan problem.
Whereas for 200 years our judicial system ruled that Congress has full authority over immigration and that illegal immigrants have no affirmative right to remain in the country, Judge Pregerson, the judge writing this liberal screed, ruled that Arizona had violated … you guessed it … the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Illegal aliens, who are to be placed into deportation proceedings pursuant to laws duly passed by Congress, now have an equal “right” to not only remain in the country but receive driver’s licenses.
What’s worse, the court contended that Arizona actually had no state interest in denying driver’s licenses and was motivated predominantly by “a dogged animus against DACA recipients.” The fact that almost 30,000 driving offenses have been committed just by the 30,558 criminal aliens Obama released in fiscal year 2014 alone is evidently of no concern to Judge Pregerson who has replaced jurisprudence with political rants. (CR)
Well the Left has a “dogged animus” against Legal Americans and anyone who disagrees with them on any level.
Does the president of the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of individuals who are violating federal law that he will not enforce that law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the future and that he will take action that makes them eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due to their unlawful status?
Through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, President Barack Obama is telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.
On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.
And there will be a 4-4 decision, with the Liberals all voting for the Agenda rather than the law.
At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.
“The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress’s complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country,” the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.
“DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as ‘lawfully present’ and eligible for work authorization,” says the Texas brief. “And ‘lawful presence’ is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security.”
In the administration’s brief, the solicitor general admits that the president’s DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.
“Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal,” he says. “An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process.”
Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on “deferred action” to legally work in the United States.
“Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here,” says the administration’s brief.
After all, they are The Preferred Americans. They will do anything their King wants, when he wants and it will all “benefit” them.
You racist! 🙂