Connect with us

Biden Administration

Biden Administration Announces Executive Action to Grant Amnesty to over 500,000 Illegal Immigrants

Published

on

The Biden administration unveiled a sweeping executive order on Tuesday that will provide legal protections to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants married to U.S. citizens. The move, touted by the White House as an effort to “keep families together,” is set to prevent the deportation of these individuals and grant them work permits if they have lived in the country for at least a decade.

The executive order, which could impact nearly 500,000 people, is part of the administration’s “parole in place” program. This initiative allows eligible immigrants three years to apply for permanent citizenship. The new measure is expected to benefit an estimated 1.1 million illegal immigrants married to U.S. citizens.

“President Biden believes that securing the border is essential,” the White House stated. “He also believes in expanding lawful pathways and keeping families together, and that immigrants who have been in the United States for decades, paying taxes and contributing to their communities, are part of the social fabric of our country.”

President Biden is slated to celebrate this executive action at a White House event marking the 12-year anniversary of former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This program protects children who entered the U.S. illegally from deportation. The new order will also extend eligibility for Obamacare to DACA recipients.

In addition, the Biden administration is developing a plan to streamline the process for undocumented students and other illegal immigrants to receive temporary work visas.

While DACA has survived numerous legal challenges, the fate of Biden’s new executive action remains uncertain, particularly given the current composition of the Supreme Court.

Politically, the new relief program could intensify scrutiny of Biden’s handling of immigration, which has been a contentious issue. A recent CBS poll conducted from June 5-7 revealed that over 60 percent of Americans, including a majority of Hispanics, support mass deportations of illegal immigrants. Similarly, a Gallup poll in April identified immigration as the most important issue for the American electorate for the third consecutive month, marking it as the most polarizing topic recorded by Gallup over the past 25 years.

In an effort to address public concerns, Biden recently signed an executive order to significantly restrict the number of illegal immigrants seeking asylum in the U.S. This move came after months of stating he lacked the authority to do so without congressional approval. However, the order received criticism from Republicans for being insufficient and from progressive Democrats for allegedly neglecting vulnerable migrants.

Former President Donald Trump, Biden’s expected opponent in the 2024 presidential election, has been vocal about his administration’s strict immigration policies and has pledged to oversee mass deportations if re-elected.

As the Biden administration continues to navigate the complex landscape of immigration policy, this latest executive action represents a significant shift aimed at protecting the families of U.S. citizens while also addressing broader concerns about the nation’s immigration system. The coming months will reveal the full impact and reception of these new measures on both the legal front and in the court of public opinion.

Biden Administration

Former Obama-Biden Advisor Claims “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Hinders Government Action

Published

on

In a controversial opinion piece published recently, Tim Wu, an advisor to both the Obama and Biden administrations, argued that the First Amendment is becoming a significant obstacle to effective governance. The essay, titled “The First Amendment is Out of Control,” has sparked widespread debate and criticism.

Wu’s argument centers on the assertion that the First Amendment, designed to protect free speech, is now being exploited by powerful entities, including Big Tech companies, to resist regulation and oversight. He cites recent Supreme Court rulings regarding Texas and Florida laws aimed at regulating social media platforms as examples of this exploitation.

According to Wu, the collaboration between the government and major social media platforms is often hindered by the First Amendment, which is used as a defense to protect free speech in digital public forums. He suggests that this constitutional protection is being misused to prevent necessary government action aimed at safeguarding citizens.

Critics, however, argue that Wu’s perspective misinterprets the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment. They contend that the amendment’s role is precisely to protect citizens from government overreach and censorship, ensuring that free speech remains a cornerstone of democracy. The idea that the First Amendment is an obstacle rather than a protector is seen by many as a dangerous and misguided interpretation.

Furthermore, Wu’s essay touches on the issue of banning platforms like TikTok and implementing age verification laws, such as California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code. He suggests that the First Amendment stands in the way of these actions, which he believes are necessary for national security and protecting minors online. Critics counter that these measures, if implemented, could set precedents for broader and potentially harmful censorship practices.

Wu’s reference to the First Amendment as a “suicide pact,” borrowing language from a 1949 dissenting opinion in the Terminiello v. City of Chicago case, underscores the dramatic tone of his argument. He suggests that the amendment, while intended to safeguard freedoms, can also be interpreted in ways that undermine societal safety and security.

In conclusion, Tim Wu’s essay has reignited the debate over the balance between free speech and governmental regulation. While Wu argues that the First Amendment’s current application hinders effective governance and protection of citizens, his critics maintain that the amendment is essential for safeguarding democratic principles and preventing government overreach. As this debate continues, the interpretation and application of the First Amendment remain at the forefront of discussions about free speech and public safety in the digital age.

SOURCE: NEW YORK TIMES

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

DHS and FBI Issue Warning About Large Fourth of July Events as ‘Attractive’ Targets for

Published

on

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a warning on Wednesday regarding potential threats to large Fourth of July celebrations. According to an internal bulletin obtained by ABC News, these events are considered “attractive” targets for lone offenders and small groups with malicious intentions.

The bulletin emphasizes the risk posed by individuals and small groups who might exploit the gatherings for terrorism or other harmful activities. The warning comes as the nation prepares for Independence Day festivities, which traditionally draw large crowds to public spaces.

The FBI and DHS are urging local law enforcement and event organizers to increase vigilance and security measures. The agencies highlight the importance of public awareness and cooperation, encouraging individuals to report any suspicious activities immediately.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden is 7 Times More Popular with Ukrainians than Trump, Poll Reveals

Published

on

In a recent poll conducted by The Counteroffensive/Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, President Joe Biden emerges as significantly more popular among Ukrainians compared to former President Donald Trump. This inaugural poll offers insights into Ukrainian sentiment towards American leadership during their ongoing conflict with Russia.

According to The Hill, a striking 46.7 percent of Ukrainian respondents expressed a preference for President Biden as the leader they believe would better support Ukraine’s war effort. In contrast, only 6.5 percent of those polled favored Trump in this regard.

Continue Reading

Trending