This is how our lawmakers voted

H R 3009 RECORDED VOTE 23-Jul-2015 4:19 PM

QUESTION: On Passage

BILL TITLE: Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 466

Go here to see who the dogs are by name.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll466.xml#

Think how absurd this is. 179 Representatives voted...it's okay to break the law!

Unbelievably 5 Republicans joined the Democrats and 5 more refused to vote on it. 
And we call these bastards Republicans?!?

Remember who they are the next time you cast a vote.

Peter King NY

Surprising

Dave Reichert Wash 8th Dist

Dan Donovan NY

Carlos Curbelo FL

No surprise here

Robert Dold Illinois

The sad thing is Barry will veto it and there won't be enough votes to override the veto.

------------------------------------------

The House has approved legislation blocking certain federal grants for sanctuary jurisdictions that do not comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

The bill passed 241-179 Thursday afternoon.

Introduced by 

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), the legislation came to the floor in response to the outcry over the murder of Kathryn Steinle earlier this year.

Steinle was shot on a San Francisco pier, allegedly by a multiple deportee illegal immigrant with a long criminal record. The illegal immigrant, Francisco Sanchez, had been released from San Francisco’s custody — less than three months prior to his arrest for shooting Steinle — due to the city’s sanctuary policy of not complying with federal immigration detainers.

The murder has sparked a national debate over sanctuary cities and immigration enforcement.

Earlier Thursday Steinle’s father, Jim Steinle, testified before a House panel about the need for more immigration enforcement.

“Our family realizes the complexities of immigration laws, however, we feel strongly that some legislation should be discussed, enacted and/or changed to take these undocumented immigrant felons off our streets for good,” Steinle said.

The legislation that passed Thursday — the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act — would block federal law enforcement grants to cites and jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

“The fact is, some cities decide to ignore our laws, and not only is that wrong, but it’s clearly dangerous as well,” House Speaker told reporters before the vote. “The House is acting today to put state and local officials on notice that we’ll no longer allow them to decide how and when to enforce our nation’s laws.”

“And I call upon the Obama administration to follow suit, to stop covering up for these ‘sanctuary cities,’ and enforce the laws that are there to protect the American people,” he added.

While conservatives say they would have liked to see more — the limited immigration group NumbersUSA opposed the legislation, explaining it was disappointed in the House’s “wholly inadequate” response. Supporters of the bill called it a step in the right direction.

Both House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and have said they received commitments from House leadership that Congress will take additional steps on immigration enforcement legislation.

“Rep. Hunter’s bill is an important first step. But there is much more we need to do to rebuild immigration enforcement in the United States,” Goodlatte said on the House floor before the bill’s passage.

Earlier Thursday, the White House issued a veto threat against the bill calling instead for comprehensive immigration reform and touting its new, controversial replacement for the Secure Communities program — Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). The administration expressed specific concerns about the impact of the legislation on civil rights.

“[T]he bill would condition Federal money on State and local governments allowing their law enforcement officials to gather citizenship and immigration status information from any person at any time for any reason,” the White House’s statement of administrative policy reads. “The Administration believes that such blanket authority would threaten the civil rights of all Americans, lead to mistrust between communities and State and local law enforcement agencies, and impede efforts to safely, fairly, and effectively enforce the Nation’s immigration laws.”

This is how our lawmakers voted

I'm sending this to Trump

I'm not surprised by the Democrats. But check out the Republicans, especially under 'M' for McCain.

(Click to enlarge)

Looking forward to this one.

U.S. Senators who voted for the Iran deal

I'm sending this to Trump

Another side of 911 I never heard about

Video 133

Another side of 911 I never heard about

I good reason to change the 14th Amendment

Which I have been saying for years.

Immigrant parents suing Texas for withholding birth certificates to US-born kids

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 

This was the intended purpose:

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of Section 1 in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This clause represented Congress's reversal of a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision which had declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

It's because of this clause we now have "anchor babies". All you have to do to rectify this loophole is add three words

All persons born or naturalized in the United States of legal parents, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 

Why?

Because two wrongs don't make a right. 

Think about it. Is it too much to ask to be born of legal parents?

-------------------------------------------------------

June 12, 2015: A Texas state flag attached to a bike waves after the Republic of Texas (ROT) Biker Rally parade in Austin, Texas. (Reuters)

Immigrant parents living in Texas without proper identification papers are suing the state for withholding birth certificates from their American-born children, in a tricky case that pits Texas' strict ID laws against the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. 

The suit was filed in May in U.S. District Court in Austin by a group of Mexican citizen parents living in Texas. The suit claims the state refused birth certificates for 23 children because the parents could not provide the proper photo identification under state law. 

But the parents argue Texas is, in doing so, violating the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ status. 

The lawsuit does not outright say the parents are illegal immigrants, but strongly suggests it -- at one point alleging the state is denying their kids birth certificates due to their "immigration status." 

“We’re trying to resolve this issue once and for all,” Efren Olivares, the plaintiffs' lawyer who also works with the Texas Civil Rights Project, told FoxNews.com. “Our two main objectives: obtain birth certificates for the 23 children and to obtain a clear statement from the state agency as to what people in this situation will have to produce in the future to get their birth certificate.” 

The concept of birthright citizenship is controversial in its own right, with illegal immigration foes concerned that undocumented parents are having children inside the U.S. to help the entire family stay in the country. 

But the right is nevertheless enshrined in the Constitution. Yet some illegal immigrant parents in Texas have had trouble getting a birth certificate for their kids because they themselves lack the right papers. 

In 2013, local jurisdictions stopped accepting consulate cards, called “matriculas,” under state pressure. Immigrants had been able to get matriculas from their home country’s consulate in the state, but since have had to show their foreign driver’s license or border ID card as primary verification. Passports without U.S. visas don’t count.

Advocacy groups point out that many illegal immigrants don’t have these documents and going back home to get them would probably mean they couldn't return. 

The state, however, says that blocking matriculas is just a matter of enforcing its own rule.

“Texas has never accepted the consular ID’s,” said Chris Van Deussen, press officer for the Texas Department of State Health Services. “Birth and death records are filed at the local registrar … so while we’ve never accepted them at the state level, I cannot say that every registrar rejected them.”

Van Deussen emphasized that matriculas weren’t secure forms of identification. He said “the issuer doesn’t verify data or documents that go into them.”

The purpose of enforcing the ID rules is in part to ensure parents are who they say they are. Van Deussen said while the agency is committed to getting people the documents, they also have a duty to ensure people provide valid information to prevent fraud and ID theft. 

“This is not a policy that’s based on anybody’s immigrant status, it is based on the ID a person can present.”

Identification restrictions nevertheless have big implications for immigrants.

The suit claims that potentially thousands of Mexican and Central American parents have been denied birth certificates for their children. Families need certificates to register their children in school or enroll in appropriate health insurance and government programs.

Olivares said that children can be denied benefits over certificates, and that even churches sometimes don’t baptize children without their form. Some parents have been unable to get the certificates for several years, according to an NPR report.

Texas’ ID crackdown coincides with a boom in Central American children being born in the state. Last year alone, more than 55,000 families came to the U.S. from Central America. Three-fourths of them went to Texas, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

Jennifer Harbury, another lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Texas’ certificate denials are politically motivated. She told the Los Angeles Times that they're part of the pushback to the Obama administration’s 2012 deportation protections and 2014 proposals to protect immigrant parents with American-born children.

Texas’ attorney general is expected to respond to the lawsuit in the coming weeks.

I good reason to change the 14th Amendment

I was afraid something like this may happen

Obama officials deny 'secret deals' in Iran nuclear pact

This is right up Barry's alley. I was concerned Congress wasn't getting the straight dope on the deal and it turns out to be the case. This is coming from the same guy who told us ObamaCare would be on C-Span. It wasn't. Whose partner in crime told us "You have to vote for it to find out what's in it." We we found out later, "You can keep your insurance period, no matter what." Wasn't part of the deal either.

Ask yourself this... if Pompeo and Corker didn't go to Vienna would we have known about this?

“That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a statement. 

Please read the update below.

-----------------------------------

A senior State Department official on Wednesday pushed back against Republican claims that the administration worked out secret bargains with Iran while hammering out the landmark nuclear agreement.

The charge was leveled Tuesday by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas). The two said they met with officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last weekend and said two side deals were made in addition to the formal Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

One agreement covers the inspection of Iran’s Parchin military complex, and the second detials how the IAEA and Tehran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear effort, according to Cotton and Pompeo, who are members of the Senate and House Intelligence panels.

State Department spokesman John Kirby rebutted the claim.

“There's no side deals. There's no secret deals between Iran and the IAEA that the P5+1 has not been briefed on in detail,” he said during a press briefing.

So this is pretty clear. There are no side deals right? 

But read further.

Kirby acknowledged that lawmakers have expressed interest in two documents in addition to the JCPOA, annexes and related materials the department sent lawmakers Sunday.

“Congress has what we have, and what's being asked for here are IAEA documents or material that is not in our possession,” he said. 

Wait a minute... there may some 'caveats' to the deal but we don't have it in our possession.

“These kinds of technical arrangements with the IAEA are a matter of standard practice, that they're not released publicly or to other states, but our experts are familiar and comfortable with the contents, which we would be happy to discuss with Congress in a classified setting,” Kirby added.

In other words...you caught us in a lie so now we'll be happy to discuss it with you.

On Tuesday, the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said they had fired off a letter requesting access to the reports.

Kirby's comments come as Secretary of State Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew give a classified briefing on the deal to House lawmakers.

The trio will also appear before the Foreign Relations panel Thursday to discuss the deal, part of the administration’s lobbying effort to sell the accord to a deeply skeptical Capitol Hill.

Kirby said there “will be ample opportunity” to address the issue during the meetings.

“These are issues between Iran and the IAEA, these technical agreements are never shared outside the state being questioned in the IAEA. But we have been briefed on them,” he said. 

“And we are more than comfortable in a classified setting discussing that. Should that be of interest today, I am absolutely certain that Secretary Kerry would be willing to talk about, as well as Secretary Moniz,” according to Kirby.

Update

White House acknowledges ‘side’ deals between Iran, IAEA

National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday acknowledged the existence of so-called “side” agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Rice said the deals involve Iran accounting for past military uses of its nuclear program, but rejected GOP assertions that this represented “secret” side deals to the Iranian nuclear agreement. Rice said the documents between Iran and the IAEA are not public, but the administration has been informed on their contents and will share details with members of Congress in a classified briefing on Capitol Hill. 

“We’re satisfied with them and we will share the contents of those briefings in full in a classified session with the Congress,” she told reporters. “So there's nothing in that regard that we know that they won't know.”

Republicans have been demanding to see the Iran-IAEA agreements and have criticized the administration for not yet making the public.

“That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a statement. 

Congress is reviewing the Iran nuclear deal, which lifts sanctions on Tehran in exchange for its concessions on its nuclear program.

President Obama has hailed the deal as a major win for the United States that will keep Tehran from getting nuclear weapons and make the Middle East more safe. Critics argue it does too little to prevent Iranian aggression and that it could leave Israel open to an attack. 

The talk of secret side deals could hurt administration efforts to defeat legislation aimed at undermining the deal, and Rice took aim at the comments.

She said it was “no secret” that Iran and the IAEA were negotiating an agreement on possible military-related nuclear activities. 

She said this had always “been an issue between Iran and the IAEA” and was a sticking point in the talks.

Obama’s top national security adviser said all components of the deal the U.S. negotiated have been shared with Congress. 

Besides agreeing to discuss the past military dimensions of its nuclear program, Iran struck a deal with the IAEA on inspections at the Parchin military base, one of the most sensitive sites discussed in the U.S.-led international talks.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry requesting that documents related to the deals be submitted to Congress. 

Lawmakers have 60 days to review the agreement before voting whether to approve or reject the Iran deal.

Kerry, along with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, were on Capitol Hill Wednesday to hold classified briefings for members.

------------------------

The bottom line:

Instead of doing a deal with Iran we should be bombing them, especially their nuclear facilities.

I was afraid something like this may happen