Taken in the abstract the illegal alien influx appears singular. However, if you allow yourself to elevate above the current crisis you find a parallel issue which aligns with the Obama goals for illegal alien absorption. You just have to get high enough and look beyond the current crisis horizon to see where they connect.
We have already outlined how HHS UAC (Unaccompanied Alien Minor) Grants are essentially a ruse similar to ACORN. There might be a few “unaccompanied” minors, (although we have yet to actually see or read of one) but there are many more entire families, or more commonly “mothers with children“.
$622 million has been assigned to the UAC “crisis”, and granted (spent) via HHS funding, since 2012 when President Obama authorized the Deferred Action Program known as DACA.
On June 15, 2012, President Obama signed an executive order calling for deferred action for certain undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children and have pursued education or military service here. The program which is called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) actually began on August 15, 2012.
Almost immediately the UAC border crisis exploded:
Simultaneously the number of deportations decreased:
Around the same timeframe the DACA Executive Order was implemented there was another “fundamental change” program initiated.
The second program is from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and called “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule” (AFFA).
Pause, and remember: “we are three days away from fundamentally transforming America” ~ Senator Barack Obama (Presidential candidate)
The “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule”, or AFFA rule, is based on this “Social Justice” premise (as outlined by the legislative authors):
[…] Research indicates that disparities in access to community assets negatively impact educational and economic outcomes. [13] Sustained exposure to highly distressed neighborhoods is associated with a reduction in children’s odds of high school graduation by at least 60 percent, [14] while low-income students who have access to asset-rich neighborhoods with good schools may realize math and reading gains that help close the achievement gap. [15] Given this research, HUD hopes this proposed rule and other efforts would reduce disparities in access to community assets based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. (link)
As WND author Leo Hohmann has noted in his recent article:
[…] The proposed rule, which is set to take effect in October [2014], would put teeth on the Fair Housing Act of 1968 by providing a set of standards, guidelines and goals, then use data to “measure” and “assess” how well a local community is meeting its Fair Housing obligations.
Some say the new rule will lead to “racial quotas” and will be exploited by HUD to aggressively absorb the nation’s swelling population of illegal immigrants into communities that are trying to keep them out. (link)
You can see how the construct of the HUD rule would need a social advocacy hook to actually embed.
As a general principle the federal government effectively drawing the zoning allowances for your community would be met with considerable backlash.
So what does the Obama Administration need?
The social engineers need a “Humanitarian Hook” -as well as a “legal hook” in HUD- to block opposition, and simultaneously position any AFFA opponent as being “against” the poor (classist), or ethnically different (racist), or (fill_in_the_blank).
The progressive embed social justice strategy is similar to the successful playbook they just used on the border influx.
By labeling surging illegal immigration as a “Humanitarian Crisis” the illegality became difficult to target as unlawful. Instead the focus was on the “poor children” and the insufferable conservative idiots, yes idiots, like Glenn Beck, Dana Loesch and even Ted Cruz, fell for it; hook-line-sinker. “What about the poor children” ?
I digress to the stupid.
Back to the Federal Register outline from the plan author:
To promote more effective fair housing planning and assist every program participant to meet requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing, HUD proposes in this rule to address directly concerns about the current fair housing planning process by making a number of key changes. These include: (1) A new fair housing assessment and planning tool, the AFH, which replaces the AI, (2) the provision of nationally uniform data that will be the predicate for and help frame program participants’ assessment activities, (3) meaningful and focused direction regarding the purpose of the AFH and the standards by which it will be evaluated, (4) a more direct link between the AFH and subsequent program participant planning products—the consolidated plan and the PHA Plan—that ties fair housing planning into the priority setting, commitment of resources, and specification of activities to be undertaken, and (5) a new HUD review procedure based on clear standards that facilitates the provision of technical assistance and reinforces the value and importance of fair housing planning activities.
In terms of the provision of greater clarity regarding the purpose of the fair housing assessment and planning process, the proposed rule will more clearly define the core goals involved in fulfilling program participants’ affirmatively furthering fair housing mandate. In doing so, HUD begins with goals long associated with this mandate: addressing patterns of segregation while supporting integrated and integrating communities, as well as seeking to reduce disproportionate housing needs among protected class members. [16] The proposed rule recognizes that segregation is due in part to a historical legacy of discrimination and continues to have adverse impacts, with the dual concentration of poverty and racial and ethnic populations still far too prevalent. [17] Segregation carries a heavy social cost.
Numerous studies indicate that segregation negatively impacts minorities’ educational attainment, labor market outcomes, physical and mental health, and crime victimization. [18] These negative outcomes translate to lower economic productivity for the Nation as a whole, and increased cost to society in a multitude of ways, from the justice system to the public health infrastructure. The importance of overcoming patterns of segregation and supporting means to advance integration are equally important as applied to persons with disabilities. Programmatically, HUD recognizes and is implementing means to overcome a legacy related to persons with disabilities that reflects a history of inappropriate segregation, institutionalization, and otherwise limited equal access to housing choices. [19] (link)
What does this mean?
Disparate impact is a legal doctrine employed by the Fair Housing Act that says any policy can be labeled as discriminatory if it has a ‘disproportionate adverse impact’ against any minority group.
“The way it would work, any zoning that would have a disparate impact on immigrant communities, despite their being based on sensible reflection of good faith and people just wanting to make sure their communities are protected, would be impacted by these regulations,” Fitton said.
For example, if a city’s zoning laws favor home ownership as opposed to renting or favor single-family homes over multifamily apartments, it would be susceptible to allegations of a disparate impact on minorities. That could trigger a lawsuit, which then forces a zoning change and construction of new Section 8, government-subsidized apartments in middle-class suburban neighborhoods.
[…] According to HUD’s own website, block grant recipients under the rule would be “required to sign a certification to affirmatively further fair housing.” As part of the city’s consolidated plan, these recipients are required to undertake fair housing planning, which consists of “an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to fair housing choice” as well as “actions to cover the effects of the identified impediments” and “maintenance of records to support the affirmatively furthering fair housing certification.”
Romano wrote in a recent blog, “It’s not enough to arbitrarily implement amnesty — whether through refusal to enforce existing law or congressional action — the federal government wants to draw the maps of where the new residents will live, forcing local communities to make room whether they like it or not.”
While the benefits of the new regulation to Democrats would seem obvious, the vote to kill the rule in the Republican-controlled House was surprisingly close at 219 to 207.
“Establishment politicians of both parties, especially those in the Republican Party, you use the phrase ‘fair housing,’ and they run for the hills,” Fitton told WND. “It’s an agenda that usually has nothing to do with fair housing, it’s a government power grab. That’s the clear and present danger of a regulation like this. It would have the practical impact that it could lead to the federalization of all zoning laws.” (more)
