Biden immigration policy – USA Gov Policy

Judge John H. Wilson, (ret.) concludes his review of President Biden’s immigration policy.

The Constitution’s Enumeration Clause requires a count of “persons,” and not “citizens.” This leads to the inevitable question – for the purpose of representation, should illegal aliens be counted as residents of the Congressional district in which they resided?

In 2019, President Trump wanted to include a question regarding citizenship on the 2020 census. The result of that attempt? “In Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966 (June 27, 2019), the Supreme Court…declined to hold that the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to include…a question (regarding citizenship) on the 2020 decennial census was ‘substantively invalid.’ That ruling was not surprising, given that…the Census Bureau has inquired since 2005 about citizenship on the American Community Survey—a separate questionnaire sent annually to about 2.5 percent of households.

“The Court determined, however, that the explanation the Department had provided for including such a question on the census was, in the circumstances of that case, insufficient to support the Department’s decision.”

“The Court’s ruling, however, has now made it impossible, as a practical matter, to include a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census questionnaire.” President Trump’s solution to this problem? The issuance of Executive Order 13880, which required that “all executive departments and agencies (agencies) provide the Department (of Commerce) the maximum assistance permissible, consistent with law, in determining the number of citizens and non-citizens in the country, including by providing any access that the Department may request to administrative records that may be useful in accomplishing that objective.”

President Trump’s reasoning for his effort to determine the number of non-citizens residing in the United States is explained in a Presidential Memorandum to the Secretary of Commerce dated July 21, 2020: “(I)t is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status…Excluding these illegal aliens from the apportionment base is more consonant with the principles of representative democracy underpinning our system of Government. Affording congressional representation, and therefore formal political influence, to States on account of the presence within their borders of aliens who have not followed the steps to secure a lawful immigration status under our laws undermines those principles. Many of these aliens entered the country illegally in the first place. Increasing congressional representation based on the presence of aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status would also create perverse incentives encouraging violations of Federal law. States adopting policies that encourage illegal aliens to enter this country and that hobble Federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws passed by the Congress should not be rewarded with greater representation in the House of Representatives.”

Every man feels nice and proud when he purchase cialis online is able to satisfy his partner. In the recent past, there are a lot of changes and improvements that are made in the Cosmetic surgery in India, because of the many radical changes taking place in patients that consume alcohol. levitra online http://deeprootsmag.org/2012/11/17/now-our-minds-are-one-a-native-american-thanksgiving-liturgy/ While you will be take in L-arginine from certain of the ordine cialis on line browse around now foods that you can feed your baby: 1. The leading of good lifestyle is the preconditions for good sexual health, as well as keeping tadalafil 20mg for women the cardiovascular system in top condition for maximum distribution.

Unfortunately, these legitimate efforts to ensure that sanctuary cities and states do not profit from an increased population of illegal aliens have been reversed by the Biden Administration. In an Executive Order dated January 20, 2021, “reapportionment shall be based on the total number of persons residing in the several States, without regard for immigration status.” Further, “Executive Order 13880 of July 11, 2019…and the Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2020…are hereby revoked.”

The effect of this change cannot be underestimated, particularly when coupled with the other changes in immigration policy outlined earlier. Sanctuary cities and States like New York and California, which have been losing population and representatives in Congress for decades can successfully maintain their allotted number of House seats by replacing departing citizens with illegal alien residents. Those same cities and States can also expect to receive an influx of illegal border crossers, now that the Biden Administration has declared that asylum seekers no longer must wait in Mexico for their applications to be heard.

States like New York can also expect to be financially rewarded for their sanctuary status. As described in the Gothamist, “For four years, Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate have been relentlessly hostile to the interests of Democrat-run states… Last week, Biden announced a $1.9 trillion rescue package for the United States, following the $900 billion relief legislation Congress passed in December…(Senate Majority Leader Chuck) Schumer said more than $50 billion of that money would come directly to New York…”

These dire events have occurred in what are only the opening days of the Biden Administration. What follows these curtain-raising acts can only be anticipated with dread for non-sanctuary cities and states.

Illustration: Pixabay

An analysis from the distinguished jurist Judge John H. Wilson, (ret.)

The Biden Administration has wasted no time in declaring our borders open to illegal aliens. One of the 46^th president’s first acts was an Executive Order “on the Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities.” This Order specifically revokes President Trump’s 2017 Executive Order 13768, which states that “Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.” Gone now is Executive Order 13768’s directive to “(e)nsure(d) that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds.”

As reported in the Texas Tribune, based upon this “Revision of Priorities” Order, “(t)he Department of Homeland Security announced two significant immigration policy changes…a 100-day pause on deportations for some undocumented immigrants (and) asylum seekers who attempt to enter the United States will no longer be part of a controversial policy enacted under former President Donald Trump that has forced tens of thousands to wait in Mexico for American court hearings.”

Further, by Proclamation, Biden has declared “the Termination of Emergency with Respect to the Southern Border of the United States and Redirection of Funds Diverted to Border Wall Construction.” In the words of this Proclamation, “building a massive wall that spans the entire southern border is not a serious policy solution. It is a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security…I have determined that the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border in Proclamation 9844 of February 15, 2019…was unwarranted. It shall be the policy of my Administration that no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall.”

In response to these changes, a large caravan of Hondurans attempted to push their way through Guatemala on their way to Mexico, and eventually, the Southern US border. As one member of the caravan stated, “Now that the new president (Biden) is here we are waiting for the answer, all of us immigrants who are here from Honduras…We are looking to see what the new president says to move forward.” However, as reported by AP, the “once large caravan of Honduran migrants that pushed its way into Guatemala last week had dissipated by Tuesday in the face of Guatemalan security forces. Small groups pressed on toward the Mexican border, while others accepted rides from authorities back to Honduras.”

Nevertheless, how long will the Mexicans and Guatemalans hold back Hondurans from traveling through their countries? Those applying for asylum no longer need to wait in Mexico for their application to be heard, those in the United States illegally won’t be deported, and sanctuary cities will not lose federal funding for harboring illegal aliens. Sounds like the “coyotes” and other people smugglers are back in business.

Ronald Tamler , a commander levitra medical expert working for the Mount Sinai Clinical Diabetes Institute in New York for guidance and help in fighting anti-aging. It offers effective treatment for mental, physical and sexual health http://www.unica-web.com/watch/2010/marivanna.html cialis uk and wellbeing. Also many online drug stores provide you with find out this web-site samples of generic viagras. You shall ask all manner of questions that you need not have buy tadalafil online to hurry up with your happy hours.

Maybe you think these changes are the worst we can expect from the Biden Administration on the issue of illegal immigration. If so, you’d be wrong. A more significant change, with far-reaching effects has also been instituted by President Biden.

As described by James DeLong in the Federalist, “(t)he Enumeration Clause, as modified by the 14th Amendment, says representatives are apportioned among the states ‘according to their respective numbers,’ as determined by ‘counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.’ The clause goes on to require a decennial enumeration—we know this as the census.”

Zachary Mueller of America’s Voice describes the importance of the census; “The number of U.S. House seats was capped at 435 total seats in 1929, and each House district contains roughly the same number of people, which means that states can lose or gain House seats depending on how their population has changed since the last census. Currently, each House member represents about 747,000 people as there (are) about 327 million people in the U.S. The upcoming 2020 census will determine which states will lose seats and which will gain seats.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

What does the Reversal of Harvey Weinstein’s Conviction Portend for Donald Trump?

In 2020, the New York County District Attorney’s Office scored a major conviction against a powerful Hollywood Producer – Harvey Weinstein. As described by Forbes, “Weinstein has faced scores of sexual harassment and assault accusations since 2017…[d]uring his New York trial, Weinstein was cleared of predatory sexual assault and rape in the first degree.” He was, however, convicted of Sexual Assault in the First Degree, and Rape in the Third Degree, and was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Recently, the New York State Court of Appeals has reversed Weinstein’s conviction, and sent the case back to the lower court for a retrial. While “Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala called the Court of Appeals ruling ‘a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York,’” the usual groups made the usual complaints. “Attorney Douglas H. Wigdor, who has represented eight Harvey Weinstein accusers including two witnesses at the New York criminal trial, called it ‘a major step back’…Debra Katz, a prominent civil rights and #MeToo attorney who represented several Weinstein accusers, said her clients are ‘feeling gutted’ by the ruling… “Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as ‘Pulp Fiction’ and ‘Shakespeare in Love,’ ushered in the #MeToo movement. Dozens of women came forward to accuse Weinstein, including stars such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial drew intense publicity, with protesters chanting ‘rapist’ outside the courthouse. ‘This is what it’s like to be a woman in America, living with male entitlement to our bodies,’ Judd said…” The New York Court of Appeals is known for being a left-of-center, activist court. Why would it reverse a conviction for rape entered against a character as reportedly heinous as Harvey Weinstein? Because despite its overall Progressive stance, even a notoriously leftist court knows an injustice when they see one. The decision to reverse Weinstein’s conviction is an important one. It underlines the necessity for fairness to all defendants, even unpopular ones accused of egregious crimes. The decision also has application to the ongoing case proceeding in New York County Supreme Court against former President Donald Trump. In May of 2023, we discussed the issue of whether or not Donald Trump’s indictment in New York County for actions that occurred in 2017 was beyond New York’s Statute of Limitations for prosecution of the criminal offenses with which he is charged. At that time, we noted the language of CPL Section 30.10(4)(A)(i), which excluded the time during which a defendant “was continuously outside this state.” This issue is also discussed in Chapter 6 of our book, The Making of a Marty – An Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump. We also stated that “it is entirely possible that the time Donald Trump spent in the White House, serving his country as the President of the United States, could be used against him in New York State Supreme Court.” Like Trump, Weinstein also spent many years outside the State of New York. “Prosecutors charged Weinstein with multiple crimes, including rape in the third degree for an alleged assault that occurred in March 2013. Weinstein was charged in May 2018, two months after the five-year statute of limitations on that offense would have expired. Weinstein challenged the charge, arguing it fell outside the statute of limitations and as a resident of New York state the extension wouldn’t apply to him. Prosecutors used records from ‘United States Customs and Border Control’ to show that Weinstein had been out of New York for 193 days during that five-year period– more than the 68 days needed to capture the earlier conduct. The judge rejected Weinstein’s argument and allowed the charge to stand.” Judge Wilson’s article concludes tomorrow Photo: Pixabay