April 29, 2021
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Coinciding with President Biden's 100th day in office today, Family Research Council is releasing a new resource, "Tracking the Biden Administration," that reports President Biden has made at least $479.9 billion available that can subsidize abortion and abortion businesses -- more than 19 times the level set under President Obama.
Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package made $467.8 billion available for abortion and abortion businesses. By comparison, within President Obama's first 100 days, he had signed a stimulus bill that included $24.7 billion in subsidies for employer-sponsored plans that cover abortion. These funds made available by the Biden administration expressly exclude existing prohibitions on abortion funding, including the Hyde amendment and Helms amendment. In his first 100 days, President Biden has also funded abortion and abortion businesses by delivering an additional $12.1 billion through executive actions.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins issued the following statement:
"On his 100th day in office, it's more than clear that President Biden has not only returned to the pro-abortion policies of the Obama administration, and is eliminating many of the Trump administration's pro-life policies, but he has expanded abortion funding far beyond the level of any previous administration.
"In his 100-day sprint to the Left, President Biden has forced taxpayers back into a partnership with the abortion industry, both at home and abroad. He has made clear that he places no value on the inherent dignity of human life. His actions deny the truth that every human life, born and unborn, possesses inherent dignity and deserves to be treated with respect.
"As Senator Tim Scott noted in his remarks last night after the Biden address, this is a president who has failed to find the common ground he promised. Instead, President Biden has prioritized spending taxpayer dollars on abortion, making Obama look moderate by comparison," concluded Perkins.
Connor Semelsberger, Director of Federal Affairs for Life and Human Dignity at Family Research Council, added:
"The level of federal taxpayer funds made available to the abortion industry in President Biden's first 100 days is unprecedented. As a senator from Delaware, Joe Biden consistently supported key provisions like the Hyde and Helms amendments, which prohibit funding for abortion at home and abroad. But as president, Joe Biden signed a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package that expressly excluded these longstanding provisions in key areas, despite members of both parties coming together to maintain abortion funding restrictions in the five COVID-19 relief packages signed by President Trump."
"I am awestruck by the amount of interest in this debate and in the candidates running for Governor this year," said VFRW President Paula Steiner, "Since Virginia is one of two states having statewide elections this year, and all eyes are upon us. Virginia is once again the bellwether state for what is to come politically."
"This type of debate format allows voters to not only see what unites our candidates, but also what sets them apart," said Steiner, "I'm really pleased with the amount of talent shown by our candidates. No matter what happens on May 8th, we are building a bench for the future."
"And following the Republican convention on May 8th, the National Federation of Republican Women's President Ann Shockett announced that the NFRW will send a strike force team to help our statewide candidates win in November," concluded Steiner.
(April 27, 2021, Washington, D.C.) – The following statement was issued by Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), regarding the nomination of Ed Gonzalez to lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE):
"As part of his unrelenting assault on the integrity of our immigration enforcement system, President Biden has chosen a staunch opponent of interior immigration enforcement to lead the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Harris County (Texas) Sheriff Ed Gonzalez will bring the sort of contempt for enforcement of immigration laws in the interior of the country that Chris Magnus, President Biden's pick for Customs and Border Protection, will bring to controlling our borders. Neither is fit for the important jobs for which they are being nominated, and their appointments should be rejected by the Senate.
"As sheriff, Gonzalez ended cooperative agreements between Harris County and ICE, making it more difficult for ICE to do its job protecting the safety of the American public and enforcing U.S. immigration laws. At a time when we are facing a full-blown border crisis and sharp increases in violent crime all across the country, President Biden's choice for ICE director will further restrict local-federal cooperation and protect criminal aliens.
"While millions of Americans still struggle to reclaim jobs lost during the COVID crisis, ICE's duty to enforce laws that bar illegal aliens from filling jobs is more important than ever. There is little chance that that will happen under Gonzalez's leadership.
"After a hundred days of deliberate sabotage of border enforcement, it seems the president is now attacking interior immigration enforcement…with his ICE pick."
April 26, 2021
IRLI urges agencies to finalize health protection at the border
WASHINGTON— In the waning days of the Trump administration, agencies proposed a rule recognizing that, because public health can be a matter of national security, those who pose a public health danger to the country are ineligible for asylum. Once in office, the Biden administration announced that it was delaying implementation of this new rule until the end of this year, and may rescind it altogether. In response, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has submitted a public comment showing why the rule should be adopted now.
In its comment, IRLI emphasizes that both United States law and international protocols recognize that national security takes precedence over affording refuge to asylum-seekers. Indeed, U.S. law explicitly bars asylum to those who pose a national security threat. IRLI also points out that the rule only applies to aliens with a disease officially recognized as a public health threat by federal authorities, and strikes the right balance between protecting foreign refugees and protecting the public health.
"Once again, even though health security is clearly part of national security, the Biden administration has proven that it doesn't take public health seriously when it comes to the border," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "It is outrageous that if a dangerous pandemic disease originates from abroad, Biden will still grant asylum in the United States to aliens carrying that disease. Nothing but blind politics of a particularly perverse kind could motivate doing anything else than implementing the rule Trump proposed now, and we implore the administration to do just that, for the protection of all Americans."
The comment is on Security Bars and Processing; Delay of Effective Date (86 Fed. Reg. 15069).
By Gary Bauer
April 21, 202
IRLI represents state in hard-hitting lawsuit
WASHINGTON—Today the State of Texas commenced a lawsuit in a federal district court accusing the Biden administration of causing, through its deliberate policies, an influx of illegal aliens infected with COVID-19 into Texas and the United States. This influx imperils both the public health and the economic recovery of that state and the nation. Texas has retained the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) to represent the state as Outside Counsel in the case.
The complaint filed today shows in detail how a raft of Biden administrative actions—each a sharp departure from previous Trump policies—has resulted in a surge of COVID-infected illegal aliens into the United States and Texas, endangering public health and straining the resources of Texas. Each one of the actions that cause this influx—such as the policy of releasing unaccompanied children and families after putting them in crowded detention settings where COVID can spread—is unlawful as contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious (meaning unexplained and irrational), procedurally invalid (meaning no public notice and opportunity to comment were provided), or in violation of the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The relief Texas seeks is a return to the previous Trump policies.
"To reopen our country and restart our economy, we need the pandemic to get better, not worse," said Christopher Hajec, director of litigation for IRLI. "But amazingly, the administration did not even consider the economic effects of its actions on Texas or anywhere else. That disregard of a highly relevant factor shows the administration's recklessness—and it is also, in and of itself, a violation of law."
"These dangerous and inexplicable actions demonstrate that Biden, though he bills himself as the COVID president, cares nothing about COVID if it gets in the way of his administration's project of releasing more and more illegal aliens into the country," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "The effects of this calculated irresponsibility will be devastating. It is vital that we stop the administration here, and also block its other lawless policies that threaten the safety and well-being of Americans."
The case is Texas v. Biden, No. 4:21-cv-00579-P (N.D. Tex.).
FAIR Submits Public Comments Urging Immediate Implementation of the "Security Bars" Rule During COVID Pandemic
(April 22, 2021, Washington, D.C.) – In response to the COVID pandemic that has claimed more than half a million American lives and wreaked havoc on our economy, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), last December, issued a final rule, known as the Security Bars rule, that establishes a "statutory bar to eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal" in the face of "certain emergency public health concerns," such as global pandemics. Implementation of that rule was delayed by the incoming Biden administration – a delay the administration now intends to extend through the rest of 2021.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has submitted public comments opposing further delay of the Security Bars rule finalized by DHS late last year. FAIR "believes the rule will significantly mitigate the risk of another deadly communicable disease being brought to the United States, or being further spread within the country, by the entry of aliens from countries where the disease is prevalent," state the comments submitted today.
"If the past 14 months have taught us anything, it is that the United States must respond quickly and nimbly in the face of threats posed by pandemics. Virtually every nation on Earth has taken steps to bar entry of people with the intent of safeguarding public health. The United States has a legal right and a moral obligation to do the same," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR.
"The ability to bar entry of people, particularly those attempting to cross our borders illegally, should not be a political issue. It is a public health issue, plain and simple, and DHS must have the tools it needs to prevent people – many of whom may have been exposed to COVID or other communicable diseases on their journey to our border – from entering. The American people need this protection now, not in 2022, which is why FAIR is urging the Biden administration not further delay implementation of this important rule," Stein concluded.
April 19, 2021
IRLI, attorneys' group, urge common sense in reading state statute
WASHINGTON—The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed a friend-of-the-court brief
By federal law, aliens lawfully in the country who commit an aggravated felony are to be deported. Specifically, an alien who has been convicted of violating a state law setting forth an offense Congress has defined as an aggravated felony qualifies for this adverse immigration consequence. The Supreme Court has interpreted the law as requiring courts to decide whether the state criminal statute an alien was convicted under cannot be violated except by committing an offense Congress has defined as an aggravated felony.
Congress has defined theft by taking property as an aggravated felony. In Iowa, this offense is set forth in a statute that also sets forth other theft offenses, some of which are not aggravated felonies. The issue before the Board is whether this statute is divisible into theft by taking and these other kinds of theft, making the theft by taking part, in effect, a separate statute—in which case aliens shown by court records to have violated it must be deported. IRLI, in its brief, and also Attorneys United for a Secure America (AUSA), in its own brief, use Iowa state case law to demonstrate that the statute is clearly divisible. (AUSA is a project of IRLI.)
"The Board should resist this attempt to twist statutes away from their clear meaning—here, a meaning clear on the face of the statute and also obvious to the state courts of Iowa—to obtain favorable immigration consequences for criminal aliens," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "At present we face an overwhelming border crisis brought on by unlawful government policies. But for years we have faced the crisis of a systematic weakening of our immigration laws caused by lawsuit after lawsuit meant to hollow out the law gradually. We have to keep fighting on both fronts if we are to ensure that our immigration system functions as intended by Congress."
The case is Amicus Invitation No. 21–15–03 (B.I.A.).
Posts
All Comments
