Posted by Somos Independents
See this video where police berate little kids for singing at Speaker Boehner‘s Office.
This is outreach from the GOP and Reince Priebus for the #Women and Hispanic Voters? Do these Republicans think they will appearl to the women matriarch voters who are protective of children to begin with?
My they are out of touch.
See video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JJ8-3nQMGM#t=26
- Speaker Boehner remembered as the Scrooge in 2013 regarding Immigrant Rights’ history.
Posted by Somos Independents
- I like what Alex Mones has to say below because I have somewhat similar views. Some folks (few but loud) want Obama to cram some sort of immigration order down GOP throats — but let me remind you that some Americans felt like Obamacare was crammed down their throats in 2010 which is why the Tea Party coalesced and organized more and took over the House of Representatives. Those few have short-term memories, and if they want a Republican President, then they should continue to support for President Obama to “cram” something down GOP’s throats. But those of us who are independent key swing voters with a realistic and somewhat centrist approach to things believe in supporting bipartisan legal comprehensive immigration reform. We are not interested in band aids that some future President can undo. Luckily for us, we have the burgeoning “Hispanic” vote on our side as well as women voters to help keep extremism out of our National political arena. Indeed there are more women voters than male voters across our Nation and we are sick of the mostly male Congress destroying our Nation with obstructionism.
The rhetoric, partisanship and obstructionism is producing a vile and evil anti-Obama agenda that seems to harness bigotry, and I am concerned about the President of the United States and his welfare considering a recent Christian American Patriots Militia leader who says: “We now have authority to shoot Obama.”
That said, here is an opinion below that sort of brings more light into the immigration debate that is helpful to independent, women and Hispanic voters:
The Question Is Not “Can The President Stop ALL Deportations”…The Question Is “What Will Happen If He Does?”
By Alex Mones
The letter from the law professors stating PresObama can stop deportations of 11mill immigrants raises more questions than it gives answers. The power to stop deportation is there. The President (POTUS) does have the power to stop deportations; HOWEVER, it is a very LIMITED power, thus it cannot be used to stop ALL deportations or stop prosecution of the 11million undocumented immigrants in this country. The letter signed by the law professors stating POTUS can use these “magical” powers doesn’t tell the full story. The letter doesn’t tell you the repercussion POTUS will face from Congress and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS).
Each branch of our Government has its checks and balances to prevent abuse by any one branch. Not only that, but the letter does not state how such move will risk the lives of 11million immigrants. Here is what they failed to present:
This action generally is used to put a stay on the deportation proceedings or prevent an individual even from being placed in a deportation proceeding and it makes them eligible for employment authorizations. Enforcement of this action is squarely within POTUS’ executive powers. In 2009 widows and children of US citizens benefited from it (a specific group of undocumented immigrants). However, as DHS explains “Deferred action is generally an act of prosecutorial discretion to suspend removal proceedings against a PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL or GROUP of INDIVIDUALS (eg: in this case is widows & their children) for a specific timeframe; it cannot resolve an individual’s underlying immigration status.”
If POTUS decided to use Deferred Action for ALL 11 million of immigrants, can you explain to me how you make 11 million fit into the category of “group of individuals” similar to the specific group of widows and children of US citizens? Millions of undocumented immigrants have relatives who are not closely related; many don’t fit the Dreamer qualification. How do you deal with those millions of immigrants? Are you willing to discriminate against those groups?
Under Federal statutes, the Attorney General may in his discretion parole into the US temporarily, on CASE-BY-CASE basis, any alien applying for admission to the US. Parole permits noncitizens to remain lawfully in the US. In the past PresCarter granted this order to allow Cubans into the US. PresClinton did the same for Cubans, and PresObama did the same for Haitians orphans who were in the process of being adopted in the US. PresObama also used this power for close relatives of US Citizens in the military.
A case cited by the small group of law professors is Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This case is about the EPA regulation allowing STATES (not POTUS) to treat all pollution-emitting devices within same industrial grouping as though they were encased within a single group was based on permissible construction of term “statutory source” in the Clean Air Act Amendments. Stretching this case to compare to immigration reform, how do you make 11 million immigrants FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES fit into “a single group,” based on the construction of our IMMIGRATION LAWS?…obviously not the Clean Air Act.
–Deferred Enforced Departure (DED)/TPS:
This is closely related to deferred action. TPS now largely supersedes the use of DED in practice. DED/TPS is granted ONLY to nationals of a foreign country that is experiencing armed conflict, a natural disaster, or some other “extraordinary” condition that makes it unsafe. Almost every POTUS has granted DED/TPS to at least one GROUP of noncitizens. PresBush granted it to Salvadorans because of the armed conflict in their country. PresObama granted DED to Liberians who were forced to flee their country as a result of armed conflict. As the conflict in this country ended so did TPS. Due to compelling foreign policy reasons, due to the armed conflict, DED was extended to those Liberians presently residing in the US under existing DED.
How exactly do 11 million from Latin America, Europe, etc fit into this SPECIFIC category of countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disaster, or some other extraordinary condition? Last time I checked we were not in a World War and the 11 million immigrants did not come from those countries in turmoil.
–Supreme Court (SCOTUS) powers to interfere with the executive powers:
The article presented by Victor Narro, Projector Director at UCLA Labor Center made the same claims as the letter of this small group of law professors. In his article he claims that the courts have recognized, and implicitly approved, the existence of this executive power and its enforcement. However, he is very vague about what the SCOTUS actually decided. The Heckler v Chaney (1985) case is cited by a “letter” circulating the internet signed by a really small group of law professors in 2012. The problem is that this letter does not give you the full story of this case. The Heckler case is about prison inmates suing the FDA to take action under the FFDCAct. The issue in this case was about the reviewability by SCOTUS of the (action or) inaction of an executive agency when mandated by a Federal Statute.
In Heckler, SCOTUS said that the executive agency’s decision (to act or) NOT to institute proceedings WILL be reviewed by SCOTUS. One of the exceptions to SCOTUS review is an agency’s refusal to institute investigative or enforcement proceedings, UNLESS Congress has indicated otherwise. Congress did not set agencies free to disregard legislative direction in the statutory scheme that the agency administers. Finally, SCOTUS left up to CONGRESS, not the courts, the decision as to whether an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings should be judicially reviewable.
So, SCOTUS would easily review POTUS abuse of his executive powers and overturn his actions putting at risk the lives of 11million immigrants and the passing of CIR. In a concurring opinion by Justice Marshall, it was said that SCOTUS will review failures of an agency to act (eg: stay all deportations, etc) with an appropriate deference to an agency’s legitimate need to set policy through the allocation of scarce budgetary and enforcement resources. In order for POTUS pass the review by SCOTUS, it would have demonstrated that DHS does not have the money or the man power to continue with the deportations. Finally, keep in mind that Congress is the one that sets the budget for DHS and sets the quota of deportation it must meet in order to receive funding from Congress.
–WashPost: How CIR failed over and over again because of the GOP
–PolitiFACT: Killing the bill, or making it better? (2007 Senator Obama’s vote)
–NYTimes: CIR bill declared dead on arrival by GOP (2009)
–PolitiFACT: The truth about Pres Obama’s “promise” of CIR (2008)
–TheHill: GOP opposes CIR (2010)
–ThinkProgress: GOP derail Immigration Reform (2009)
–TheHuffPost: GOP’s Immigration Reform Blockade
–TheHill: Election 2014 and the GOP opposition to Immigration Reform
–Reuters: Republican controlled Congress keeps detention quota
–PolitiFact: Can the President Stop ALL deportations?
–Politifact: Marco Rubio fears Obama can legalize ALL undocumented immigrants
-The Letter from the Professors here.
Posted by Somos Independents
Ohio women leaders are already putting their 2014/ 2016 strategic election hats on because the mostly male House of Representatives are not quick to fix broken issues under Ohio Republican Speaker John Boehner’s direction.
It’s time for Women Voters to take a closer look at Jennifer Garrison of Ohio. She is running against Republican Rep. Bill Johnson in a key competitive race. Women voters ought to remember that not one single Republican Presidential candidate has made the White House without Ohio, and we view Ohio as the heart of a matter.
In addition to organizing Ohio women, we are being proactive with the burgeoning Hispanic vote and key swing independent voters. Independent voters need to be better at organizing the rising independent vote and we know that both sides of the political spectrum spend a lot of money in convincing independent registered voters, too.
MethodologyOn November 2-3, 2013, Basswood Research conducted a survey of likely general election voters in 20 congressional districts. These districts are widely viewed as the 20 most competitive ones currently held by Republican incumbents. The districts surveyed were: CA-10, CA-21, CO-6, FL-2, FL-10, IA-3, IL-13, IN-2, MI-1, MI-7, MI-11, MN-2, NE-2, NV-3, NY-11, NY-19, NY-23, OH-6, OH-14, PA-8. The survey was conducted by live professional interviewers by telephone. The overall sample size was 1000, with a margin of error of +/- 3.1%, at a 95% confidence interval. Each district contributed 50 interviews to the sample; as such, data in individual districts is much less reliable.Key Findings• Voters in key Republican districts are highly dissatisfied with political leadership in Washington across-the-board.President Obama’s job approval rating is poor, with 41% approving and 58% disapproving. “Democrats in Congress” fare even worse, with 34% approving, and 63% disapproving. But it is “Republicans in Congress” who are in the worst shape in these Republican districts, with 27% approving and 70% disapproving of their job performance.• Voters in key Republican districts want action on immigration reform.Fixing the current immigration system is rated as “very important” by 70% of voters in these districts. An additional 23% rate action on immigration reform as “somewhat important.” Only 5% rate immigration reform as either “not very important” or “not at all important.”• Voters prefer an imperfect immigration solution to no solution.When given a choice between leaving the current immigration system the way it is, and “passing new laws that are not perfect, but do attempt to fix the serious flaws in the current system,” voters choose imperfect solutions over the status quo by a massive 77%-15% margin. That includes 67% of voters who consider themselves “very conservative,” and 72% of registered or affiliated Republicans.The major elements of the comprehensive immigration reform proposals being considered in Congress have widespread support in these key Republican districts.E-Verify: 80% support; 13% opposeDream Act: 78% support; 16% opposeEarned pathway to citizenship for undocumented: 71% support; 21% opposeIncreasing fines for employers who hire 72% support; 23% opposeUndocumented immigrants:Increasing border patrol and border fencing: 67% support; 24% opposeIncreasing high tech legal immigration: 62% support; 30% oppose• The combination of enhanced border security and pathway to citizenship represents a consensus position.When presented with three options regarding the interconnection between border security to prevent future illegal immigration and citizenship for those who are presently in the country and undocumented, the following responses were found:17% oppose a pathway to citizenship under all circumstances;26% favor a pathway to citizenship even without any increase in border security;50% favor a pathway to citizenship if it also includes substantially increased border security.76% favor a pathway to citizenship, with or without enhanced border security.
Food welfare hypocrisy is astounding.
There is something terribly ass backwards about Republicans who cut food stamps to common and poor American people. Yet, millions and millions of dollars are given in the name of Farm Subsidies or corporate welfare.
From one of my favorite Chicano writers via Juan Montoya:
By Juan Montoya
Following our post on the subsidies provided to sugar-cane growers in Cameron County, we had one of our three readers alert us to the information that the federal government provides through the Dept. of Agriculture related to the dependence of local farmers on crop subsidies and insurance.
The graph above indicates that in the last 17 years, the U.S. taxpayer has been very, very good to local farmers who raked in $188 million in commodity subsidies, $67.2 million in crop insurance subsidies, and $30.7 million in disaster subsidies.
We wondered why gadflies like Dagoberto Barrera continue to bash food-stamp recipients while local farmers who grow unnecessary crops like sugar cane continue to exploit the generosity of the American taxpayer growing a crop that we don’t really need.
It’s interesting to note that local U.S. District 34 Rep. Filemon Vela has been appointed to a committee to iron out the crop subsidies in the new Farm Bill after the Republican-led House passed a separate bill dealing with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Now, will Vela – given the millions received by agribusiness in his district – move to protect the average taxpayer? Or will he simply make noises about his fiscal conservatism and continue the handouts to the top 10 percent who collected 90 percent of all subsidies, that is, his political contributors? That is, go along for the ride?
Historically, the food stamp program has been part of the farm bill, a huge piece of legislation that had routinely been passed every five years, authorizing financing for the nation’s farm and nutrition programs. But in July, House leaders split the bill’s farm and nutrition sections into separate measures, passing the farm legislation over Democrats’ objections.
The bill, written under the direction of the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, cut $40 billion from the food stamp program over the next 10 years. It would also require adults between 18 and 50 without minor children to find a job or to enroll in a work-training program in order to receive benefits.
It would also limit the time those recipients could get benefits to three months. Currently, states can extend food stamp benefits past three months for able-bodied people who are working or preparing for work as part of a job-training program.
Below is a list of the top 25 “farmers” and corporations in Cameron County (Brownsville, Zip Code 78520) who received government subsidies, including some paid to set aside acreage (not to plant) and the totals they received from 1995-2012. Notice this does not include the members of the Santa Rosa Sugar Cane Growers who not only receive crop commodity payments, but are also protected by tariffs which keep out sugar imports from other countries and inflate the price Americans pay for that commodity. Amendments to the food-stamp program also allow SNAP recipients to purchase foods containing sugar (candy, soda pop, etc.) to purchase sugar-based products with the federal stipends. What a sweet deal, hey Fil?
1. San Miguel Partnership: $1,854, 561.68
2. Leal Farms, Inc.: $1,408,455.17
3. Mathers Family Parternship, Ltd.: $939,407,39
4. Frank D. Yturria: $916,850.00
5. Flores Farms Jv.: $788,518.71
6. Edward Mathers Farms: $749,392.99
7. John L. George: $557,257.00
8. T. Norberto Flores: $379,029.02
9. M.f Yturria Grandson’s Trust: $225,410.00
10. Mary and Frank Yturria Family Ranch: $182,924.00
11. Mathers Farms Jv: $160,000.00
12. Sampayo-Garcia Farming Lc.:$152,282.00
13. Pf Sweeney and Sat Jv.: $142,098.33
14. Teofilo H. Flores Jr.: $139,885.11
15. Frank Edward Mathers: $125,168.00
16. Empresa Inc.: $121,672.39
17. Diana Ines Santiso Del Rio: $110,720.86
18. Nelson Smith: $101,500.36
19.Leal Brothers: $86,423.00
20. Peyton F. Sweeney Sr.: $86,288.35
The San Miguel Partnership corporation has its address listed as 186 Creekbend in Brownsville and listed its subsidies as:
Cotton – $1,157,953
Sorghum – $224,254
Corn – $112,295
Frank D. Yturria, Mary, Granson’s Trust ( millionaires in their own right), milked the taxpayer for:
Cotton – $656,158
Sorghum – $108,569 Corn – $39,662
Livestock – $21,578
This is just a partial listing of the subsidies given to these agribusiness corporations. For a more complete listing to to: http://farm.ewg.org/addrsearch.php?z=1&zip=78520&page=0
Said Rahimzadeh-Kalaleh Rodriguez, Mexican Physicist doing academic research in Europe.
In perusing the responses by people who have been following the Lorenzo Garcia University of Texas story, a comment made by Said Rahimzadeh-Kalaleh Rodriguez is a gem that I have found. Lorenzo Garcia and his chapter of the Young Conservatives of Texas are under fire for a controversial “catch an illegal immigrant game,” which calls for students to apprehend people wearing “illegal immigrant” labels in exchange for $25 gift cards.
We are happy to hear the University of Texas leadership reacted swiftly, and we are glad the “catch an illegal” game has been cancelled.
Regarding the YCT controversial game, Rahimzadeh-Kalaleh Rodriguez says:
I am a Mexican physicist doing academic research in Europe (as an immigrant). Suppose for a moment I were considering joining your University, and suppose that I am a qualified individual (will not say that of myself). How do you think your event makes me feel about your University. Do you think I will have any desire to engage in an atmosphere where people get 25 dollar rewards for catching “illigal immigrants” walking around a University campus?
To judge everyone at UT based on the actions of this group would be as wrong as judging all Mexicans (or even latin-americans) based on the actions of a sub-sector of that population. However, this event does reflect the level of conciousness and tolerance of a significant sector of your University. To be honest, I find it sad that you derive a sense of identity from hating a fellow who just happened to be born on the other side of a river. Learn to earn merit and appreciation from your own ideas and creativity, and stimulate others to be the highest version of their own selves they can be. Then you will attract the most fascinating people to your debate. Otherwise, all I see now is a group of people who derive a sense of superiority from the very thing for which we have the least control at all: where we were born.
Well said, Mr. Rodriguez. And we would like to wish you and your family the best in all your endeavors.
Meanwhile we saw an internal YCT poll asking those on the message forum whether people believed YCT was racist or not. An overwhelming2000+ votes declared YCT as racist
Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) viewed as “racist” in an internal poll taken within the YCT FB message board when the “Catch An Illegal” Game was posted by Lorenzo Garcia. Lorenzo supported Senator Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott.
A MUST READ :