Archive for April, 2015

Volokh Conspiracy: Immigration and Equality

Now that a federal judge has enjoined President Obamas unilateral amnesty, immigration reform will have to be achieved the old-fashioned and constitutional way: by compromise with Congress. A grand bargain is not impossible, but it will require a broad re-framing of the issues and a clear sense of what is at stake. For one thing, any such bargain should end, once and for all, governmental discrimination on the basis of race.

Affirmative action and immigration might, at first glance, appear unrelated; in fact, they are profoundly and perversely intertwined. It is often said that anti-immigration sentiment is driven by a fear of competition; Americans are said to fear competing against new immigrants for jobs, for contracts, for educational opportunities. This account leaves out a crucial part of the story: Americans have never lacked competitive spirit or feared a fair fight. What many Americans fear is that these competitions will, in fact, be rigged from the outset. The sad fact is that they are right.

American law and policy will discriminate in favor of most immigrants those of favored races such as blacks and Hispanics and their children, and their childrens children. Correspondingly, American law and policy will discriminate against Americans of disfavored races Asian Americans, Indian Americans, Caucasian Americans and their children, and their childrens children. This discrimination is enshrined in federal law, in state law, and in private policy abetted by law. It is called affirmative action.

This systematic discrimination is pervasive in American life in private employment, state employment and federal employment; in state contracting and federal contracting; at private universities and state universities. And in practice, it is no mere tie-breaker; it is a massive thumb on the scale in favor of some races and against others. A first-generation Asian American who has made his home in, say, Wisconsin and worked hard to earn for his children their chance at the American dream might, in principle, favor liberal immigration reform, so that more ambitious immigrants might follow in his footsteps. This Asian American may be happy to know that the son of a new Hispanic immigrant who settles next door would have an excellent chance of claiming his share of the American dream: With a respectable GPA and LSAT, such a boy would have, for example, a 62 percent chance of admission into the University of Wisconsin Law School. But this Asian American also may know a deeply perverse and unjust fact: If his own son earns identical credentials, that boy will have a mere 16 percent chance of admission, simply because of his race. State law, federal law, private schools and public schools will all dramatically favor a Hispanic immigrants child over an Asian American child, simply on the basis of race. This is one of the great injustices of American life, and it is one of the great political and moral hurdles to immigration reform.

As a political matter, there is a natural bargain here. Democrats believe that immigration is a winning political issue for them; they believe that it makes them look compassionate while it makes Republicans look churlish. Affirmative action, on the other hand, is a political winner for Republicans; polls overwhelmingly oppose it, and it allows Republicans to argue for the ringing principle of equality under law, while Democrats are left to defend the status quo of institutional discrimination and racial spoils. The connection between these two issues creates the potential for a grand congressional compromise. Republicans could agree to comprehensive immigration reform, if Democrats would agree to end governmental discrimination on the basis of race.

Meanwhile, for President Obama, this would be more than a political victory; it would be a historic moral triumph. There is a broad consensus that our immigration system is broken and that it can be downright cruel in its current dysfunctional form. President Obama has wanted to achieve immigration reform since before the beginning of his presidency. As for affirmative action, President Obama is uniquely well qualified to explain the moral case for equality under law. His soaring speech in Selma last month reminded us all of how eloquent he can be on this topic: as he declared, the heroic marchers of 50 years ago didnt seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before. Our newest Americans seek exactly the same thing. It is President Obama alone who can say to them:

Welcome to the United States of America. We are a nation of immigrants, a nation of opportunity. We are not a land of discrimination; we are a nation of equality under law. This is a nation where the son of a Kenyan immigrant may grow up to be president of the United States. Come to our shores and we make you this promise: We will treat you like everyone else. We will not discriminate against you based on your race, your color, your country of origin. And we will not discriminate in your favor either. Your children will be treated like our children. We will not discriminate in favor of your daughters on the basis of their race. But neither will we discriminate in favor of my daughters, Malia and Sasha, on the basis of theirs. We know that, like the marchers at Selma, you seek not special treatment but equal treatment, and that is what we promise you. You are welcome here, and we offer you a uniquely American constitutional guarantee. We promise you our Fourteenth Amendment promises you equal protection of the law.

This is the speech that President Obama was born to give, a speech that no one else could, a perfect complement to his speech at Selma. In one historic moment, he could renew the pride that we all felt six years ago when our first black president swore his oath of office. He could at once reform our immigration laws and, in the same moment, redeem the true promise of equal protection the promise, in Justice Harlans words, that [o]ur Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.

In 2008, President Obama promised to fundamentally transform[] the United States of America; here, at last, is the transformation that would assure his legacy. For the first time in American history, we could welcome immigrants of all colors to the nation of Martin Luther Kings dream, a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. And President Obama could, for all time, be the one who made Martin Luther Kings dream come true.

Continue reading 10 minutes left

Read the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Immigration and Equality

Immigration Reform 2015: US Cities Call For Delay Of Obama Executive Order To End

A growing number of officials from U.S. cities are urging a Texas judge who blocked President Barack Obamas executive action on immigration to consider what they say are the significant harms the delay imposes on local governments. More than 70 mayors and state representatives across the country have signed the Cities United for Immigration Action, an effort spearheaded by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti highlighting the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, theexpansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals andthe perceived benefits immigration reform has for cities across the country.

Continuing to delay implementation of the Presidents executive action on immigration hurts our economy and puts families at risk, de Blasio said in an emailed statement Monday. Among the advantages cited in the groups brief, filed Monday, are job creation, increased local tax revenue and improved public safety. Our cities are united, and we will fight for the immigration reform this nation needs and deserves -- whether in the courtroom, in Congress, or in our communities. Make no mistake about it: our voices will be heard, said de Blasio.

In November, Obama bypassed Congress in signing an executive order shielding nearly 5 million immigrants from deportation and granting benefits to some parents of citizens and legal residents. The topic has become an important talking point among lawmakers leading up to the 2016 presidential elections.

Republicans quickly denounced the unilateral movement and accused the president of overstepping his boundaries. A U.S. District Judge in Texas later blocked the actions after 26 states, led by Texas, sued to have the President Obamas actions stopped.

Democrats have defended the presidents action. I proudly stand with my fellow Mayors throughout the country in support of President Obamas executive actions on immigration that promote family stability, economic growth, and community cohesiveness, Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh said in the statement. Mayors see firsthand the importance of having immigrant populations in our cities and likewise, the detrimental effects of a broken immigration system.

Go here to see the original:
Immigration Reform 2015: US Cities Call For Delay Of Obama Executive Order To End

Immigration and Equality

Now that a federal judge has enjoined President Obamas unilateral amnesty, immigration reform will have to be achieved the old-fashioned and constitutional way: by compromise with Congress. A grand bargain is not impossible, but it will require a broad re-framing of the issues and a clear sense of what is at stake. For one thing, any such bargain should end, once and for all, governmental discrimination on the basis of race.

Affirmative action and immigration might, at first glance, appear unrelated; in fact, they are profoundly and perversely intertwined. It is often said that anti-immigration sentiment is driven by a fear of competition; Americans are said to fear competing against new immigrants for jobs, for contracts, for educational opportunities. This account leaves out a crucial part of the story: Americans have never lacked competitive spirit or feared a fair fight. What many Americans fear is that these competitions will, in fact, be rigged from the outset. The sad fact is that they are right.

American law and policy will discriminate in favor of most immigrants those of favored races such as blacks and Hispanics and their children, and their childrens children. Correspondingly, American law and policy will discriminate against Americans of disfavored races Asian Americans, Indian Americans, Caucasian Americans and their children, and their childrens children. This discrimination is enshrined in federal law, in state law, and in private policy abetted by law. It is called affirmative action.

This systematic discrimination is pervasive in American life in private employment, state employment and federal employment; in state contracting and federal contracting; at private universities and state universities. And in practice, it is no mere tie-breaker; it is a massive thumb on the scale in favor of some races and against others. A first-generation Asian American who has made his home in, say, Wisconsin and worked hard to earn for his children their chance at the American dream might, in principle, favor liberal immigration reform, so that more ambitious immigrants might follow in his footsteps. This Asian American may be happy to know that the son of a new Hispanic immigrant who settles next door would have an excellent chance of claiming his share of the American dream: With a respectable GPA and LSAT, such a boy would have, for example, a 62 percent chance of admission into the University of Wisconsin Law School. But this Asian American also may know a deeply perverse and unjust fact: If his own son earns identical credentials, that boy will have a mere 16 percent chance of admission, simply because of his race. State law, federal law, private schools and public schools will all dramatically favor a Hispanic immigrants child over an Asian American child, simply on the basis of race. This is one of the great injustices of American life, and it is one of the great political and moral hurdles to immigration reform.

As a political matter, there is a natural bargain here. Democrats believe that immigration is a winning political issue for them; they believe that it makes them look compassionate while it makes Republicans look churlish. Affirmative action, on the other hand, is a political winner for Republicans; polls overwhelmingly oppose it, and it allows Republicans to argue for the ringing principle of equality under law, while Democrats are left to defend the status quo of institutional discrimination and racial spoils. The connection between these two issues creates the potential for a grand congressional compromise. Republicans could agree to comprehensive immigration reform, if Democrats would agree to end governmental discrimination on the basis of race.

Meanwhile, for President Obama, this would be more than a political victory; it would be a historic moral triumph. There is a broad consensus that our immigration system is broken and that it can be downright cruel in its current dysfunctional form. President Obama has wanted to achieve immigration reform since before the beginning of his presidency. As for affirmative action, President Obama is uniquely well qualified to explain the moral case for equality under law. His soaring speech in Selma last month reminded us all of how eloquent he can be on this topic: as he declared, the heroic marchers of 50 years ago didnt seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before. Our newest Americans seek exactly the same thing. It is President Obama alone who can say to them:

Welcome to the United States of America. We are a nation of immigrants, a nation of opportunity. We are not a land of discrimination; we are a nation of equality under law. This is a nation where the son of a Kenyan immigrant may grow up to be president of the United States. Come to our shores and we make you this promise: We will treat you like everyone else. We will not discriminate against you based on your race, your color, your country of origin. And we will not discriminate in your favor either. Your children will be treated like our children. We will not discriminate in favor of your daughters on the basis of their race. But neither will we discriminate in favor of my daughters, Malia and Sasha, on the basis of theirs. We know that, like the marchers at Selma, you seek not special treatment but equal treatment, and that is what we promise you. You are welcome here, and we offer you a uniquely American constitutional guarantee. We promise you our Fourteenth Amendment promises you equal protection of the law.

This is the speech that President Obama was born to give, a speech that no one else could, a perfect complement to his speech at Selma. In one historic moment, he could renew the pride that we all felt six years ago when our first black president swore his oath of office. He could at once reform our immigration laws and, in the same moment, redeem the true promise of equal protection the promise, in Justice Harlans words, that [o]ur Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.

In 2008, President Obama promised to fundamentally transform[] the United States of America; here, at last, is the transformation that would assure his legacy. For the first time in American history, we could welcome immigrants of all colors to the nation of Martin Luther Kings dream, a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. And President Obama could, for all time, be the one who made Martin Luther Kings dream come true.

[Cross-posted from The Volokh Conspiracy]

Go here to read the rest:
Immigration and Equality

Mark Herring backs President Obamas immigration policy

Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring is again wading into the national debate over illegal immigration by backing President Obamas executive actions.

Herring joined attorneys general for 14 other states and the District of Columbia in filing a brief with a federal appeals court Monday that contends the presidents November orders are both legal and beneficial.

While were waiting on Congress to enact long overdue comprehensive immigration reform, the President has offered lawful, reasonable steps that will boost our economy, keep families intact, and promote public safety, Herring (D) said in a statement.

The presidents plan, which would defer the deportations of as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants, has been blocked by a U.S. district judge in Texas while a lawsuit filed against it by 26 states goes forward. The brief filed Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit supports the administrations appeal of the judges decision. Rather than harming states, as opponents contend, the program will help them by bringing many immigrants into the legal economy, supporters say.

Herrings endorsement revives a clash in Virginia over immigration policy that began in April 2014, when the attorney general declared that some illegal immigrants can qualify for in-state college tuition. Republican lawmakers tried unsuccessfully in January to block those students from receiving the tuition discount in the legislature. Herring has given Virginia law enforcement officials cover to defy immigration officials by releasing suspected undocumented immigrants from custody.

Republicans have said that Herring is abusing his office to champion liberal causes in preparation for a 2017 gubernatorial campaign. The attorney general has countered that he is merely making the legal findings his job requires.

Herring has also found Virginias ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and last month he filed a brief encouraging the Supreme Court to draw the same conclusion.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) praised Herring in a statement Monday, as did U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D). Until Congress acts, Warner said, I applaud Attorney General Mark Herring for moving to defend the protections that will be extended to undocumented immigrants in Virginia.

The effort was led by Washington state. Other states joining the brief included California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont.

Rachel Weiner covers local politics for The Washington Post.

More here:
Mark Herring backs President Obamas immigration policy

Bible in Caddo Parish Clerk of court office violates 1st Amendment

SHREVEPORT, LA (KSLA) - A Bible in the Caddo Parish Clerk of Court office had to be removed because it violated the First Amendment.

When Randall Lord asked a Bible to be removed from the Caddo Parish Clerk of Court office nearly a decade ago, he never thought he'd have to ask again.

"I sent an email to Caddo Parish attorney, at the time, Charles Grubb to ask that it be removed," said Lord.

But when Lord walked back into the Clerk of Court office recently he noticed the Bible was back.

"This violates the first amendment in that it's promoting a religion. Our government is not supposed to be in the business of promoting religion," he said.

According to the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the bible violates the establishment clause, which prohibits the U.S. government from endorsing any one religion.

"I don't have anything against any religion being a part of our community or being displayed, but the way it's being displayed is improper. If other religions are included along with the display there would be no issue here," said Lord.

Not long after KSLA News 12 obtained video of the Bible, it had been replaced with a Webster's Dictionary of similar size.

Caddo Parish Clerk of Court Chief Deputy Mike Spence says the Bible was returned to it's original location, away from public display.

"We're not here to cause controversy," said Spense."We're just here to store records and keep the courts going."

Read the original here:
Bible in Caddo Parish Clerk of court office violates 1st Amendment