|
Tuesday, February 15, 2022
Feb. 27th: 7th District Congressional Forum
Senate Passes Parole Transparency Bill
VA Senate Passes Suetterlein's Parole Transparency Bill
SB5 Heading to the House of Delegates after bipartisan 37-3 vote
RICHMOND - For the third time in as many years, the Virginia Senate has passed legislation that would make public the votes of Virginia's powerful Parole Board. Senator David Suetterlein's Senate Bill 5 passed the Senate 37-3 today with the highest level of bipartisan support yet and now heads to a more receptive, Republican-controlled House of Delegates.
The transparency legislation would make the actions of the Parole Board public and bring their reporting procedures in line with other Virginia government boards. Sen. Suetterlein's identical legislation passed the Senate 29-10 in 2020 and 33-6 in 2021 but was never considered by the then Democratic-controlled House of Delegates.
"Virginians should know who is making these critical public safety and individual liberty decisions on the power Parole Board. It is great to see growing bipartisan support for this important sunshine reform and I'm optimistic it will finally given consideration by the new House of Delegates," said Suetterlein.
Eighteen of the 21 Senate Democrats joined all of the chamber's Republicans in supporting the bill's final passage. The bill now heads to the House of Delegates for consideration.
Virginia Senator David Suetterlein was elected in November 2019 to a second term representing parts of the Roanoke Valley, New River Valley, and Southwest Virginia in the Virginia Senate. He lives in Roanoke County with his wife where their children attend public schools. He is a Realtor with the Roanoke Valley owned and operated MKB, REALTORS.
Monday, February 7, 2022
The Law Makes Biden Build the Wall
February 7, 2022
IRLI shows why administration's refusal is unconstitutional
WASHINGTON—The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a Texas federal district court in support of a lawsuit brought by the Texas General Land Office to force the Biden administration to build a border wall. The case has been consolidated with an earlier case brought by Texas and Missouri seeking the same relief.
In 2019, Congress passed an appropriations act mandating that billions be spent on new wall construction. Yet the administration has flatly refused to spend this money for that purpose, despite a finding by the Department of Homeland Security that walls are 90 percent effective at stopping unlawful border-crossings.
In its brief, IRLI shows why this refusal is a violation of the administration's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The administration has not just refused to enforce the law, but has thwarted Congress's very purpose in that law: stopping 90 percent of illegal border-crossers with a wall. When an administration goes so far as to block what Congress was trying to accomplish with a law, and instead creates the opposite result, that administration has failed to take care in a way that is extraordinary, and that courts can and should act on.
"The Biden administration has abundantly shown itself to be at war with our immigration laws," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "This is not acceptable in an executive sworn to uphold and faithfully execute those laws. Though the take care clause should not be a cure for every failure by the executive branch, actively working to subvert and reverse the very purpose Congress had in passing a law makes a mockery of the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution. We hope the court sees this outrageous constitutional violation and rules accordingly."
|
The case is General Land Office of the State of Texas v. Biden, No. 7:21-CV-00272 (S.D. Tex.).
For additional information, contact: Brian Lonergan • 202-232-5590 • blonergan@irli.org View this release as a web page. | |||
Your tax-deductible gift will make a difference and enable IRLI  | |||
| © 2022 IRLI. All rights reserved. This email was sent from the Immigration Reform Law Institute 25 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 335 Washington, DC, 20001, United States | Connect with us.      | ||
| | |||
This email was sent to oldautoz@gmail.com
Immigration Reform Law Institute, 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 335, Washington, D.C. 20001, United States
Unsubscribe
Wednesday, February 2, 2022
Left-wing Censors
February 2, 2022
By Gary Bauer
While the left claims that Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy, the left is really the biggest threat to our freedom. For the latest example of the left's threat to freedom, look no further than the controversy engulfing Joe Rogan and threatening his popular Spotify podcast.
The left's jihad against Rogan is odd in a way because he's not really a conservative. He endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in 2016 and Bernie Sanders in 2020. But like Bill Maher, Rogan's not an insane leftist.
Yesterday, I wrote about how the left uses the concept of "intersectionality" to enforce ideological conformity. Because if there's one thing the left can't stand, it's diversity – diversity of thought and opinion.
Throughout the pandemic, Rogan has invited people on his show to discuss the coronavirus. At times, there have been guests who were critical of the government and who dared to question some things the healthcare bureaucrats deemed as "settled science."
Now, the left wants to take Rogan down because it has rejected a fundamental idea of America -- free speech. Yes, the left is fundamentally anti-American!
Liberal entertainers are taking their music off Spotify unless Spotify takes Rogan down. Last week, the U.S. surgeon general demanded that Rogan be censored. Really? One of America's top medical officials is taking his scalpel to the First Amendment now?
This week, the Biden White House weighed in. Press Secretary Jen Psaki demanded that Spotify "do more" than just add "content warnings" to Rogan's podcasts. (How do we get one of those warnings for Biden's next press conference?)
But much of what Rogan and others were saying that the public health bureaucracy denounced as "lies and misinformation" ended up being true or is still open to debate. Things like the lab leak theory and the effectiveness of vaccines, that masks don't work and that lockdowns don't work.
That's why this country was built on free speech and the right to question our government. When open debate is allowed, eventually the truth is discovered. And the truth shall set us free!
Beyond the "emergency" of the coronavirus, the left is all in on the idea that we're also in a "climate change emergency." Many Americans, including many scientists, disagree. And the climate alarmists have been alarmingly wrong with their past predictions.
But if the left gets to determine what is an "emergency," then the left will shutdown any debate over climate change. They've been trying for years.
By the way, racism, as defined by the left, is increasingly described as a "public health emergency." It's not hard to imagine leftists trying to shut down any debate at school board meetings over critical race theory or unleashing the FBI on concerned parents. Oh, right – they're already doing that!
My friends, FEAR IS THE POINT. The left is all about fear and control.
And if we can lose our constitutional rights whenever there is an "emergency," then the left will make sure there is always an emergency.
Illinois Anti-Detention Law Goes to Seventh Circuit
February 2, 2022
IRLI shows why appellate court should strike it down
WASHINGTON—Yesterday, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals showing the deep unconstitutionality of a new Illinois state law banning the operation of privately-operated immigration-detention facilities. A number of Illinois counties with such facilities in them, wishing to stop the release of alien criminals, sued to stop the law, but an activist district court upheld it.
As IRLI points out in its brief on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, the detention of criminal aliens and illegal aliens is called for in numerous provisions of federal immigration law. Indeed, that law imposes on the federal government a statutory duty to arrange for the detention of aliens during the removal process. For decades, the government has done so using facilities operated by private contractors.
Thus, in the words of the Seventh Circuit in an earlier case, the law does "major damage" to the "clear and substantial federal interest" in housing detainable aliens in the state of Illinois. It therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The law is also invalid because it discriminates against the federal government and its contractors.
"Anti-borders political activists passed this law to cripple the enforcement of federal immigration law in Illinois," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. "And that's just what makes the law unconstitutional. In our balanced system of dual sovereignty, states have no power to block the federal government from using methods it has lawfully selected to enforce federal law. We hope the Seventh Circuit grasps the obvious unconstitutionality of this law, and gets rid of it by reversing the district court."
The case is McHenry County v. Raoul, No. 21-3334 (Seventh Circuit).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
