Why Biden’s Immigration Plan is Flawed - Mark Krikorian

Open borders radicals protest immigration laws and borders, 2020. PHOTO: TWITTER

The radicalization of even the mainstream Left on immigration makes concessions—routine in prior amnesty proposals—unthinkable no

From The National Interest

By Mark Krikorian

January 29, 2021

The Biden administration made a show of proposing sweeping legislation that would legalize virtually all illegal aliens and enact a variety of measures to weaken immigration enforcement and increase legal immigration beyond the current level of about 1 million a year. This was no vague statement of principles—congressional staff received a fifty-nine-page, section-by-section summary of the bill.

But the bill has yet to be actually introduced in Congress. And it may never be.

That’s because, with an almost evenly divided Congress, it has no chance of passage. The bill was proposed on the president’s first day in office to satisfy a campaign pledge and as a gesture of solidarity with the party’s most radical anti-borders activists.

This is not to say there will be no congressional push for the tripartite immigration goals of the left (and its corporate and libertarian fellow-travelers): amnesty, hobbled enforcement, and more immigration. But the administration, congressional Democrats, and activists confessed to Politico recently that a series of smaller measures is more likely.

1. Adults who came as minors—the so-called Dreamers, including that subset who received DACA, the Obama administration’s amnesty-lite program to provide work permits and Social Security numbers, but not a path to citizenship;

3. So-called “essential workers” such as farm workers.

While ten Republicans could probably be found in the Senate to back some of these measures, even the most pusillanimous among them would demand some kind of meaningful strengthening of enforcement in return.

“Meaningful” is the operative word here; the days of giving the Border Patrol a few drones and calling it enforcement are over. For proposals that would legalize one-third to one-half of the illegal population to have any hope of gaining traction, they would have to include, at least, things like mandatory use of E-Verify (the online system to check the legal status of new hires is currently voluntary), and a prohibition on state and local sanctuary policies that shield foreign-national criminals from the immigration consequences of their law-breaking.

So, if Congress is likely to be the source of sound and fury signifying nothing on immigration, what is in the cards? Executive actions.

President Joe Biden is following in the footsteps of his two predecessors by focusing on the use of executive authority to make what changes he can. He has decreed an ostensibly temporary ban on deportations—though Republicans, having learned from the last four years of relentless lawfare against Trump, have succeeded for now in getting a federal judge to temporarily put that decree on hold.

Biden also lifted the so-called “Muslim ban,” which was, in reality, a qualified prohibition on visa issuance to citizens of countries (not all of them majority Muslim) whose governments are unable or unwilling to provide us information to allow the visa applicants to be vetted.

A third decree, like the others issued on the new president’s first day in office, halted construction on the border wall. This has left gaps in the fence, contracts in limbo, and stacks of expensive building materials piled up on the ground.

More decrees are expected, including a dramatic increase in refugee admissions; a move to make it easier for people likely to be dependent on welfare to get green cards;.. read the rest at thenationalinterest.org

—>UPDATE: The liberal AJC prints a lengthy correction after demand letter from the Dustin Inman Society. More news on this coming soon.

__________

Daily Signal News report (‘DEFAMATORY’: Conservative Demands Swing-State Newspaper Retract ‘Hate Group’ Smear’)
on the recent AJC attack here by the great Tyler O’Neil.

_______

I added educational hyperlinks to the below letter – dak.

_______

October 18, 2024

VIA U.S. REGULAR MAIL & E-MAIL

Leroy Chapman, Jr., Editor in Chief THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION 223 Perimeter Center Pkwy NE Atlanta, Georgia 30346

Re: Demand for Retraction and Apology

Dear Mr. Chapman, Jr.:

I write on behalf of my client, the Dustin Inman Society (DIS), to demand an immediate retraction and apology for the defamatory statements published in your October 7, 2024, article titled “Democrats in this Georgia district are backing a write-in candidate” by Tia Mitchell.

Through use of internet links, the AJC article wrongfully characterizes the Dustin Inman Society as a “Marietta-based anti-immigration hate group.” This characterization is false, defamatory, and published with actual malice. The Dustin Inman Society pushes for secure borders, is not “anti-immigration” and its proprietors do not hate anyone. Rather, DIS advocates for enforcement of U.S. immigration laws and actively opposes unlawful immigration. This distinction is crucial and well-known to staff at your publication.

I paste the offending paragraph from the AJC story:

“A search of activity under her birth name, Karen Sacandy, which Stamper legally changed in 2019, showed that she previously was aligned with a Marietta-based anti-immigration hate group. The group’s website often linked to Sacandy’s activities, like a letter seeking information about the state’s Immigration Enforcement Review Board and a copy of a letter to the editor supporting legislation to prevent immigrants claiming asylum from obtaining driver’s licenses.”

HEMMER WESSELS MCMURTRY PLLC
250 Grandview Drive, Suite 500, Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017 ● Phone 859.344.1188 ● Fax 859.578.3869

October 18, 2024 Page 2

We note the AJC informs readers that the Dustin Inman Society “often” linked to Karen Sacandy/Kate Stamper activities — but produces only two occasions.

Your story, for which DIS founder and president D.A. King was not contacted, informs readers that Sacandy/Stamper “was aligned” with the Dustin Inman Society. We note that polls show that a majority of Americans oppose the federal offense of illegal immigration. Since the letter posted on the DIS site was a published missive to the editor at the Cherokee Tribune, we must ask: does this make that newspaper a “Cherokee County-based anti-immigration hate group”?

Your characterization demonstrates a reckless and vindictive disregard for the truth, rising to the level of actual malice as defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Actual malice in defamation law refers to publication of a statement with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is false or not. Your repeated mischaracterization of the Dustin Inman Society, despite having been corrected on numerous occasions, clearly meets this standard.

The Dustin Inman Society’s position on immigration is clear and public:

1. It supports sustainable levels of legal immigration through established channels.

2. It opposes unlawful immigration due to various societal concerns, including: – Strain on public resources and services
– Potential and real public safety issues
– Economic impacts on low-wage American workers and America’s poor

– Challenges to the rule of law

3. The Dustin Inman Society defends legal immigrants when media attempt to blur the difference between them and illegal aliens.

Moreover, the Dustin Inman Society’s board includes lawful immigrants who have navigated the proper channels for authorized immigration. This fact alone should dispel any notion that the organization is “anti-immigration.” As he has informed you multiple times over much of the last two decades, D.A. King’s sister is a real, legal immigrant.

While we acknowledge that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the Dustin Inman Society as an “anti-immigrant hate group that denigrates all immigrants,” your article presents the “anti-immigration hate group” characterization as the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s independent assessment and statement of fact.

This smear is not only demonstrably false and ignores Mr. King’s many communications to you advising you of the truth, but also demonstrates an exceedingly unprofessional failure to fact-check and verify information before publication.

We demand that the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

October 18, 2024 Page 3

1. Immediately publicly retract the defaming statement in the October 7, 2024, article.

2. Publish a prominent apology, equal in visibility and placement to the original defamatory article.

3. Cease and desist from further defamatory characterizations of the Dustin Inman Society.

Failure to comply with these demands may result in further legal action. We expect your prompt attention to this matter and await your timely response.

Sincerely,

Todd V. McMurtry

cc: James Abely, Esq.