Obama to announce an Immigration Reform Plan        

 

President Obama will debut his plans for comprehensive immigration reform at an event Tuesday in Las Vegas, the White House said Friday.
In a statement, the White House said the president's proposal would call for legislation to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Obama held a strategy session Friday with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, telling the lawmakers that reform efforts would be "a top priority" in his second term.
"The President was pleased to hear from CHC members and noted that they share the same vision, including that any legislation must include a path to earned citizenship," the White House statement said. "The President further noted that there is no excuse for stalling or delay."
The White House described Obama's trip to Nevada on Tuesday as an opportunity to "redouble" efforts to fix the immigration system within the next year.
Among those in attendance at Friday's White House meeting with Obama were Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), House Democratic Caucus Chair Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas), Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.).
"After today’s meeting, it’s clear that President Obama is determined to fix our long broken immigration system," Becerra said in a statement following the meeting. "The President expressed a great sense of urgency and that comprehensive immigration reform, including an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, is his top legislative priority."
The CHC developed a nine-point immigration plan earlier this year, and that is likely to serve as the template for the president's immigration reform efforts.
"Immigrants need action now and immigration reform cannot wait," Gutierrez said in a statement after the White House meeting. "We have a unique opportunity to finally put our government on the side of hard-working immigrants. We all need to work together — the President and Congress, Republicans and Democrats — to get something done right away."
The caucus's ambitious overhaul calls for a pathway to permanent residency and eventual citizenship for undocumented immigrants, new work visas for skilled professionals, and the establishment of an employment verification system. The Associated Press reported Friday that that the White House will debut its plan separate from a bipartisan Senate working group that also hopes to outline its proposals next week.
The president has said that he is "very confident that we can get immigration reform done" and suggested he would debut his plan early in his second term.
"I think it should include a continuation of the strong border security measures that we’ve taken, because we have to secure our borders," Obama said at a press conference shortly after winning re-election.
"I think it should contain serious penalties for companies that are purposely hiring undocumented workers and taking advantage of them. And I do think that there should be a pathway for legal status for those who are living in this country, are not engaged in criminal activity, are here simply to work." Earlier this month, White House press secretary Jay Carney hinted that Obama would use his upcoming State of the Union address to push for reform.
"I would say, broadly speaking, that State of the Union addresses tend to include at least a sample of a president's agenda," Carney said at his daily press briefing. "And immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, is a very high priority of the president's. But I don't want to get ahead of the speech."
Republicans have also been aggressive in pushing new immigration reforms, with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) spearheading efforts.
In interviews earlier this month, Rubio called for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already in the United States. Under the plan, immigrants would likely be assessed a fine and back taxes, undergo a background check and work through a lengthy probationary period. That's a break from some Republicans, who have suggested that a pathway to citizenship would be tantamount to amnesty for illegal immigrants. But it's also a far more conservative plan than the one advocated by the White House, and one that has gained traction among top conservative leaders, including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).
Carney said last week that Rubio's comments "bode well" for striking a deal on reform.
"We are encouraged — referring now to recent reports ‚ that Senator Rubio's thinking — as reported — so closely reflects the president's blueprint for reform," Carney said. "The president has long called for partners from both sides of the aisle. And he has lamented the absence of partners from the other side of the aisle. It used to be a bipartisan pursuit, comprehensive immigration reform. For a while, it ceased to be. But he certainly hopes that it will be in the future."
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) on Friday argued Republicans must embrace comprehensive reform.
“In some conservative circles, the word 'comprehensive' in the context of immigration reform is an epithet — a code word for amnesty. People who oppose such reform declare that securing the United States border must come before moving toward broader reform,” Bush and conservative immigration scholar Clint Bolick wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
“Such an approach is shortsighted and self-defeating."

 

Comment:

 

It is very refreshing to see that we are getting back to basics and talking about resolving the plight of undocumented residents of the U.S. as the very necessary first step in any attempts to “fix our broken immigration system”. Congress has been dancing around the issue and sweeping it under the rug for far too long. The time has long since passed for them to “take the bull by the horns” and get it done.

 

Jack Meehan, Past National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians in America

 

PASSING OF BROTHER JIM MAGEE

 

Brother & Sister Hibernians,

 

It is with great sadness and a very sincere and profound feeling of loss that I have learned of the passing of Brother Jim Magee. Jim served as National Legal Counsel during my term as A.O.H. National President and neither I nor the Ancient Order of Hibernians could have asked for a more loyal and learned colleague. I will be forever grateful for his service in that capacity, but more importantly, as a friend and kindred spirit on our many trips to Ireland to participate in the Bloody Sunday Commemorative Marches in Derry.

My deepest condolences are extended to Jim's family and please be assured that Jim and yourselves will be in my thoughts and prayers and those of the Meehan family as you go through this very difficult time of loss.

 

Go ndeana Dia trocaire ar Seamus agus go dtuga Dia suaimhneas siorai a anam dilis.

 

Jack Meehan, Past National President

Ancient Order of Hibernians in America

Inez McCormack - R.I.P.

ALF McCrery - 22 January 2013

 

 Inez McCormack, who died yesterday after a short illness, was a leading trade unionist and a champion of women’s rights who was well-known for her work in Northern Ireland and much further afield. She was 66.
She was a forceful character, who consistently sought to improve the working conditions of a wide range of people and she also campaigned successfully on many human rights issues.
She was the founder and an adviser to the Participation and the Practice of Rights organisation (PPR), which provided support to local disadvantaged communities and groups in using a rights-based approach.
Her local and international reputation was such that she was honoured by a portrayal of her career by Meryl Streep in a play on Broadway.
In 2011, she was named by Newsweek magazine, along with Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and others, as one of the “150 Women Who Shake the World.”
Inez McCormack was born in Belfast in 1946, and left school at 16. She later studied social work at Queen’s University, Belfast and at Trinity College, Dublin.
Her distinguished trade union career began in the late-1960s and she became the first female president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
She was a signatory to the MacBride Principles, a code of conduct for US companies investing in Northern Ireland, which stressed the importance of religious equality in employment.
She also played a pivotal role behind the scenes in gaining trade union support for the Good Friday Agreement and helping to shape its provisions on equality issues.
She also made a significant contribution to the implementation of equal opportunities and fair employment in the workplace.
McCormack played a major trade union role with NUPE and latterly with Unison.
Paying tribute, Patricia McKeown, of Unison, said: “She was held in the highest regard across the international trade union movement.
“Her vindication lies in the fact that many of the issues on which she broke the mould are now seen as safe ground for those who came later.
“She has left us, but only in the flesh. Inez will never leave us in spirit.”
Mark Durkan, the former SDLP leader and Foyle MP, said: “Inez was impressive and effective in all she did. She stood for workers’ rights, for women’s rights, for equality and public services.
“Her positive outlook, compelling analysis and valid stances won her international recognition as a standard-bearer for social justice and a role model for all who seek economic emancipation.”
She was a deeply committed person who formed strong personal relationships and she was a friend of many leading public figures, including Hillary Clinton and Irish presidents Mary Robinson and Michael D Higgins.
Her human rights work was recognised internationally and she won many awards, including the Eleanor Roosevelt Award from New York City in 1997, an honorary degree from Queen’s University in 2000, and the Aisling Person of the Year Community Award in 2001.
She was married for more than 40 years to Vinny, who survives her with their daughter Anne, son-in-law Mark and grandchildren Maisie and Jamie.

 

Comment:     Inez McCormack was a truly remarkable woman, totally dedicated to civil rights and the trade unionist movement. Her extensive work over many years in these pursuits brought her to many places. Back in the day, she was a frequent visitor and lecturer in her chosen field. She participated in numerous seminars and lecture series here in the U.S. A. Over the years, I was privileged to have met Inez on several of her trips to Boston and other venues.
     Her deeply held views were quite evident in the dedication and zeal that she enthusiastically exhibited for the civil rights for the downtrodden, not only in the North of Ireland, but all over the world. Women of Inez McCormack’s caliber are few and far between and the lives of those who knew her were much richer for having had that privilege.

 

Go ndeana Dia trocaire ar Inez agus go dtuga Dia suaimhneas siorai a anam.

 

Jack Meehan, Past National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians in America

Hobby Lobby to Defy Obamacare Mandate

 

Todd Starnes - Dec 29, 2012

 

The owners of Hobby Lobby face $1.3 million in daily fines after they decided to obey God rather than the federal government – refusing to comply with Obamacare’s contraception mandate.
The act of defiance came one day after Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied Hobby Lobby’s emergency request to block enforcement of the mandate, but said the company may continue its appeal in lower courts.
Hobby Lobby is a national arts and crafts chain. They own more than 500 stores in 41 states.
The company is owned by the Green family, devout, evangelical Christians. They believe “it is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured” and they seek to honor God by operating their company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.”
The family believes the Obamacare mandate to provide the morning-after and week-after pills is a violation of their religious convictions.“To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs,” Becket Fund attorney Kyle Duncan wrote in a statement.
Duncan said the company would continue to provide health insurance for its employees while they fight the government in court.
But on Jan. 1, Hobby Lobby will face a $1.3 million daily fine if they don’t comply with Obamacare.
“The Green family respects the religious convictions of all Americans, including those who do not agree with them,” the Becket Fund said in a statement. “All they are asking is for the government to give them the same respect by not forcing them to violate their religious beliefs.”There are now 42 separate lawsuits changing the mandate, the Becket Fund said.
Conservatives praised Hobby Lobby for standing by their convictions.
“God bless this company,” columnist Michelle Malkin told Fox News. “It’s incumbent upon every conservative who believes in freedom of religion and freedom of conscience to support those businesses that are standing up and taking the slings and arrows of this discriminatory administration.”
“This is the most egregious violation of religious liberty that I have ever seen,” wrote columnist Denny Burk. “The first line of the Bill of Rights says this: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Obamacare prohibits the free exercise of the owners of Hobby Lobby. Who’s next?”Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham said President Obama “must step in to stop this madness.”
“It turns out as many feared, the president’s religious exemption to the contraception mandate is so narrow as to be meaningless,” she said on Fox News. “Unless you employ and serve only those of your same religious faith you don’t receive an exemption. So under that standard, Jesus himself would not qualify. This is unconscionable and unconstitutional.”
Abortion supporters hailed Sotomayor’s ruling.
“I hope the government earmarks every cent of that fee money for Planned Parenthood, just to spite these ass****,” wrote one reader on the Jezebel website.
“Anyway, I’m all for Hobby Lobby (and all other organizations that think birth control is totes gross) ignoring the law,” wrote Erin Gloria Ryan in a column titled, “Whore Pill-Hating Hobby Lobby Will Have to Pay a Buttload of Fines for Ignoring Obamacare.”
The website Think Progress said Hobby Lobby is ignoring two points.
“First, that Plan B is not an abortion-inducing drug, as Hobby Lobby claims, and second, that the company may well end up paying more to avoid covering contraception than they would simply providing access,” the website reported. “It also takes a twisted view on the ‘Freedom of Religion’ argument; the company is actually forcing its owner’s religious beliefs on all employees, no matter their personal religious views.”
Ingraham pointed out that in a previous case Sotomayor ruled in favor of a Muslim inmate who was denied Ramadan meals. She held that the meal was subjectively important to the inmate’s practice of Islam.
Malkin called it a selective double standard.
“Religious liberty for some, none for others,” she said.

 

Comment:

 

This is a followup to a previous message on this most important violation of rights guaranteed us as American citizens in our Bill of Rights. The Obama administration, the U.S. Congress, or anybody else has no authority to unilaterally deny us those precious rights to practice our religion as we see fit without interference by the government. Any American citizen who holds our guarantees under the Bill of Rights precious should stand solidly behind the courageous stand taken by the Green Family and anyone else willing to oppose any and all attempts to infringe upon our right, as Americans, to freely express and practice our individual religious beliefs. 

 

Jack Meehan, Past National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians in America
Knights of Columbus - 4th Degree

Supreme Court denies Hobby Lobby request for reprieve from health care mandate
Published December 26, 2012 - FoxNews.com

 

The Supreme Court has denied a request by Hobby Lobby to shield the company from the so-called contraceptive mandate while its legal battle plays out, after a federal court last week similarly ruled against the Christian-owned company.
The lower court had earlier refused to protect the company from an ObamaCare-tied requirement to provide contraceptive coverage, and the fines that come with it for not complying.
CEO David Green, who had taken his case to the appeals court after losing in a lower-court ruling, had argued that his family would have to either "violate their faith by covering abortion-causing drugs or be exposed to severe penalties."
The Supreme Court's latest ruling is not on the underlying merits of the mandate itself -- it simply denies the company's request for an injunction while legal battle on the merits plays out. There are currently more than 40 cases pending against that rule.
The mandate requires businesses and organizations, with some exceptions, to provide access to contraception coverage -- Hobby Lobby was most concerned about coverage for the morning-after pill, which some consider tantamount to an abortion-causing drug. Hobby Lobby has refused to comply, while saying the fines could add up to $1.3 million a day.In its earlier ruling, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said the company did not prove the rule would "substantially burden" its religious freedom. Though the mandate has exemptions for religious entities like churches, the lower court ruled that Hobby Lobby is not a religious group.
The company, founded in 1972, has more than 13,000 full-time employees across more than 500 stores.

 

Comment:

 

This is a very strong indication that the final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately be in favor of the implementation of the very controversial clause in the Affordable Care Act which requires all employers to pay for free access to contraceptive devices. Although the clause is vehemently opposed by all anti-abortion groups, it remains an integral part of the Obama administration’s health care legislation. Such a ruling is a sad testimonial to the constant erosion of our right of freedom to practice our religion that is guaranteed us under the U.S. Constitution. If this can happen to our right to freely practice our religion as we see fit, one can’t help wondering which of the rights that we have come to take for granted in America will be the next to come under attack. We are headed down a very slippery slope when we stand by and do nothing while our precious  constitutional rights are infringed upon.

 

Jack Meehan, Past National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians in America
Knights of Columbus - 4th Degree

Obama’s uncle wins new bid to stay in US
He gets new hearing, immigration lawyers surprised

 

Boston Globe Staff Writer - 4 December 2012

 

President Obama’s uncle has won a new deportation hearing in Boston immigration court, more than a year after a drunk-driving arrest in Framingham revealed that he had violated a longstanding order to return to Kenya.
Last week, the Board of ­Immigration Appeals granted Onyango Obama’s request to ­reopen his immigration case based in part on his contention that his prior lawyer was ­ineffective, according to a government official with direct knowledge of the case. Obama’s new lawyers have also argued that the 68-year-old Obama has lived in the United States for nearly half a century and ­deserves a chance to make his case.
Brian P. Hale — spokesman for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is prosecuting the deportation — confirmed that the board has reopened the case but declined to elaborate.
The board’s decision raised eyebrows among immi­gration lawyers who say it is difficult to persuade the immi­gration courts to reconsider a case that involves an arrest and a flagrant violation of a depor­tation order, last issued in 1992.
Framingham police arrested Obama for drunken driving in August 2011 and he later admit­ted in court that prosecutors had sufficient facts to bring the charge against him. But the drunk driving charge will be dismissed as long as he complies with terms of his sentence, including a year of probation that ends in March.
“With an outstanding order and a legally fuzzy plea, it’s pretty unusual for the board to reopen” an immigration case, said Crystal Williams, executive director of the Washington-based American Immigration Lawyers Association. “It’s not unheard of, but it’s pretty ­unusual.”
Scott Bratton, one of Obama’s lawyers at the Margaret Wong law firm in Cleveland, said Monday night, “We are obviously extremely pleased with the board’s decision. This will allow him to pursue his application for permanent resident status.”
Lauren Alder Reid, the courts’ chief counsel for legislative and public affairs, said she could not comment on the immi­gration case or say when a hearing would be scheduled because case information is generally protected by federal privacy provisions, unless the immigrant or his representative ­authorizes its release.
Because immigration court records are generally closed to the public, it is unclear what evi­dence the board reviewed to support Obama’s claim that his lawyer was ineffective. The government official who provided the reasons behind the board’s decision spoke on condition of anonymity because that person was not authorized to speak to reporters.
However, prior immigration judges’ rulings in Obama’s case obtained by the Globe under the Freedom of Information Act show that the Board of Immigration Appeals criticized his lawyer, Joseph F. O’Neil, in 1992 for failing to file a legal brief to support Obama’s ­appeal.

 

Comment:

 

About a year ago, Obama’s  Auntie Zetuni received permission to remain in the U.S. and to stay in subsidized public housing while she applied for permanent residency status even though she was living here in an undocumented status. Now, we have Uncle Onyango being granted a new hearing on his case even though he has been living here for “nearly a half century in an undocumented status and has ignored a court issued deportation order since 1992”. The most recent charge against Uncle Onyango is drunken driving, a felonious charge not a simple immigration violation.
It is nothing short of an abomination that these types of “special favors” can be given to relatives of powerful politicians while other persons who are living here in the same unenviable immigration status are being subjected to apprehension, detention for long periods in prisons with hardened criminals, and eventually deported for the most insignificant of misdemeanors most of which are related to their immigration status and are not felonies in the eyes of the law.
The unfortunate people caught up in these situations are also barred from legal re-entry to the United States for ten years. What is wrong with this picture?

 

Jack Meehan, Past National President
Ancient Order of Hibernians in America

Michigan Affirmative Action Ban Struck Down By Court

 

ED WHITE - 11/15/12

DETROIT — Michigan's ban on affirmative action in college admissions was declared unconstitutional Thursday by a deeply divided federal appeals court, six years after state voters said race could not be an issue in choosing students.
In an 8-7 decision, the court said the 2006 amendment to the Michigan Constitution is illegal because it presents an extraordinary burden to opponents who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action.
That burden "undermines the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change," said Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., writing for the majority at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
The court said having supporters and opponents debate affirmative action through the governing boards of each public university would be much fairer than cementing a ban in the constitution, which it referred to as home of "the highest level" of public policy.
The court did not comment on a portion of the amendment that deals with government hiring.
The decision is limited to states in the 6th Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. But it also raises the odds that the U.S. Supreme Court may get involved. A very similar law in California was upheld by a San Francisco-based appeals court, and the Supreme Court could choose to resolve the conflicting decisions of the 9th Circuit and the 6th Circuit on voter-approved bans.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, a supporter of the ban, said he will ask the nation's highest court to take the case.
"Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit," he said.
George Washington, a Detroit attorney for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, said the ruling is a "tremendous victory." He predicted the case will move to the Supreme Court.
"What this really means is thousands of blacks and Latinos who would not have had a chance to go to our most selective universities will have the chance to become lawyers, doctors and leaders of all fields," Washington said.
As the college admissions process for 2013 heats up, it wasn't immediately clear what campuses would do in light of the ruling. Officials at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University said they were reading the decision.
At the University of Michigan, 8 percent of undergraduates this fall are black or Hispanic, compared to almost 11 percent in 2008. The number of black female undergraduates is down 27 percent compared to 2008, according to university data.
This is the second time that the appeals court has examined Michigan's affirmative action issue. A three-judge panel last year also found the ban unconstitutional for similar reasons. But after a plea from Schuette, the entire court decided to take a fresh look at the matter, with new filings and arguments leading to the new ruling Thursday.
In a 32-page opinion, the court's majority explained the difficulties that it sees for students under the constitutional amendment. For example, there's nothing barring someone from citing family alumni connections when applying to a college. But the court said a student seeking to use race to influence the admissions process now is shut out unless the constitution is changed again.
"Michigan cannot force those advocating for consideration of racial factors to traverse a more arduous road without violating the Fourteenth Amendment," the court said. "We thus conclude that Proposal 2 reorders the political process in Michigan to place special burdens on minority interests."
In dissent, Judge Danny Boggs said the majority relied on an "extreme extension" of two Supreme Court cases to justify its decision, one in 1969 involving the repeal of a fair housing law in Akron, Ohio, and the other in 1982 involving an effort to stop racial integration in Seattle schools.
"We have the citizens of the entire state establishing a principle that would in general have seemed laudable," Boggs said of Michigan.
Another dissenter, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, said the will of 58 percent of voters in 2006 has been shredded.
"Michigan has chosen to structure its university system such that politics plays no part in university admissions at all levels. ... The Michigan voters have therefore not restructured the political process in their state by amending their state constitution; they have merely employed it," Gibbons said.
Besides Michigan, six states have banned racial preferences in admissions: Washington, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, California and Florida. In Texas and Georgia, leading public universities use a race-neutral system, though the University of Texas has maintained some use of affirmative action.
Since a 2003 Supreme Court decision, universities have been allowed to use racial preferences if they choose, though they are not compelled to do so. The court last month heard arguments in a case that could change that precedent. Abigail Fisher, a rejected white applicant, is suing the University of Texas.

 

Comment:

 

There may, possibly, have been some justification to implementing the policy of “Affirmative Action” some thirty years ago when it became law. However, in the intervening years, a program that was originally intended to provide “a level playing field” to all applicants has proven to be colossal failure and has long since exceeded its “shelf life”. Instead, it has afforded college entrance as well as job opportunities and advancement in these areas to incompetent applicants based solely on skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. to the detriment of far more qualified applicants. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will not cave in to political correctness and will rule to “pull the plug” on a program that has, arguably, hurt more people than it has helped.

This is my personal opinion on this issue and it does not necessarily agree with that of the various organizations with which I am associated.

 

Jack Meehan
Quincy MA.