WhatFinger

Brand new rights for illegals?

In the country illegally? Congratulations. Obama's AG nominee thinks you have a 'right' to a job.

By Robert Laurie ——--January 29, 2015

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

In the argument over Obama's executive actions regarding amnesty, one thing has remained constant. Companies are not supposed to be hiring illegals. Since any restriction on illegal immigrants, no matter how benign, is anathema to modern liberals, they've been trying to figure out how they're going to get around this.
Obviously, their first move was an attempt to defer deportation and issue work permits. Their second route has been to describe an illegal job in the U.S. as some kind of quasi-human right. It's not much more than a political ploy designed to put anti-illegal immigration forces behind the eight ball, but it's one of the tacks they've taken. Evil Republicans don't want to take away people's rights, do they? Enter Obama's nominee to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch. Yesterday, Senator Jeff Sessions decided to ask her who, precisely, she believed had a right to work in America. Here's the transcript, via HotAir:
SESSIONS:
Let me ask you this: In the workplace of America today when we have a high number of unemployed, we've had declining wages for many years, we have the lowest of Americans working, who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who's here, a green-card holder or a citizen, or a person who entered the country unlawfully? LYNCH:
Well, Senator, I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that's shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.
In other words, Ms. Lynch has embraced Eric Holder's habit of inventing rights and privileges that don't exist - even before she takes office. That's what you call a go-getter. ...Or maybe not.
Ms. Lynch seemed to realize that, by telling the committee what she actually believed, she'd stepped on a hornets' nest. She began trying to undo the damage almost immediately.
SESSIONS:
Well, do you think a person that's here unlawfully is entitled to work in the United States when the law says that employees can't hire somebody unlawfully in America? LYNCH:
Sorry, sir. I think that certainly the provision that you refer to regarding to the role of the employer in ensuring the legal status of those who are here is an important one and that we have to look at in conjunction with this issue in terms of preventing undocumented workers, who, as you've indicated before, are seeking employment. Again, we want everyone to seek employment, but we have in place at this point in time a legal framework that requests or requires employers to both provide information about citizenship as well as not hire individuals without citizenship.
So, it's not quite a right, but it's clear that - since "we want everyone to seek employment" - she'd like it to be one. How much would you be willing to bet that, if she's confirmed, the "legal framework" that's "in place at this point in time" is thrown on the pile of laws that progressives don't feel like enforcing? Remember, Obama's amnesty actions rely solely on prosecutorial discretion, and it's pretty clear that they believe the Commander in Chief's "discretion" is virtually without limit. So why would we assume that Someone like Lynch, who just claimed that everyone has a "right" to work regardless of legal status, would prosecute the companies that hire them? Obviously, she's dancing as she tries to have it both ways. ...But if you want to know what's in her gut, the smart money is on her initial statement.

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
Subscribe

View Comments
Robert Laurie——

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored