Politics

Attorney General Nominee Defends Obama Immigration Changes

Published

12 years ago

January 28, 2015

Attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch is sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2015, prior to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing. If confirmed, Lynch would replace Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced his resignation in September after leading the Justice Department for six years. She is now the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. This is the first nomination hearing under the new Republican majority. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

ERICA WERNER, Associated Press
ERIC TUCKER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Confronting skeptical Republicans, attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch pledged a new start with Congress and independence from President Barack Obama Wednesday, even as she defended the president’s unilateral protections for millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

“If confirmed as attorney general, I would be myself. I would be Loretta Lynch,” the nominee told her Senate confirmation hearing as Republicans showered criticism on the current occupant of the job, Eric Holder. They said Holder was contemptuous of Congress and too politically close to Obama, and repeatedly demanded assurances that Lynch would do things differently.

“You’re not Eric Holder, are you?” Texas Republican John Cornyn, one of the current attorney general’s most persistent critics, asked at one point.

“No, I’m not, Sir,” Lynch responded with a smile.

It was a moment that summed up a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that was often more about Obama and Holder than about Lynch, who is now the top federal prosecutor for parts of New York City and Long Island. If confirmed, she would become the nation’s first black female attorney general.

Holder, Cornyn contended, “operated as a politician using the awesome power conferred by our laws on the attorney general.” Lynch asked the senator to take note of “the independence that I’ve always brought to every particular matter,” and she said that when merited she would say no to Obama.

On immigration, Lynch faced numerous questions from Republicans critical of the administration’s new policy granting work permits and temporary deportation relief to some 4 million people who are in the country illegally. The committee chairman, Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, called the effort “a dangerous abuse of executive authority.”

Lynch said she had no involvement in drafting the measures but called them “a reasonable way to marshal limited resources to deal with the problem” of illegal immigration. She said the Homeland Security Department was focusing on removals of “the most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants among us.”

Pressed by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading immigration hard-liner, she said that citizenship was not a right for people in the country illegally but rather a privilege that must be earned. At the same time, when Sessions asked whether individuals in the country legally or those who are here unlawfully have more of a right to a job, Lynch replied, “The right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here.”

The hearing was the first such proceeding since Republicans retook control of the Senate in January. Lynch is expected to win confirmation without difficulty in the end, in part because Republicans are so eager to be rid of Holder. He has been a lightning rod for conservatives over the past six years, clashing continually with lawmakers and becoming the first sitting attorney general to be held in contempt of Congress.

Lynch found occasions to differentiate herself from Holder but without contradicting him, as she answered senators’ largely cordial questions.

In one example, she stated without hesitation under questioning from Sen. Lindsey Graham that she considers the death penalty an effective punishment and has sometimes sought it in her district. That was a rhetorical shift from Holder, who has expressed personal reservations about the punishment, particularly in light of recent botched executions, but who has also sought it in past cases.

On another controversial topic, Lynch said that current National Security Agency intelligence-gathering programs are “constitutional and effective.” She said she hopes Congress will renew three expiring provisions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the FBI to obtain search warrants and communications intercepts in intelligence cases.

Lynch, a daughter of the segregated South, was accompanied at the hearing by about 30 family members and friends. Her mother, a retired English teacher and librarian, was unable to make the trip, but her father, who is a retired minister, sat behind her throughout the hearing along with her husband and several members of her college sorority, Delta Sigma Theta, wearing their trademark bright red.

Beyond his clashes with Congress, Holder has faced accusations from critics that he has aligned himself more with protesters alleging police violence than with members of law enforcement, a contention he and the Justice Department have strongly denied — but one that resonated in the aftermath of recent high-profile deaths of black men at the hands of white officers.

It’s an area Lynch is familiar with. She helped prosecute the New York City police officers who beat and sexually assaulted Haitian immigrant Abner Louima in 1997, and her office in New York is currently leading a civil rights investigation into the police chokehold death of Eric Garner in Staten Island last summer. Lynch has been U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New since 2010, a role she also held from 1999 to 2001.

Lynch told senators that one of the most important issues facing the country is “the need to resolve the tensions that appear to be discussed and appear to be rising between law enforcement and the communities that we serve.” She said that the best way to deal with the problem is to get all parties to meet and talk, “helping them see that, in fact, we are all in this together.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

White House Drops Plan to Scale Back College Savings Plans

Don't Miss

Lynch to Cast Herself as Departure From Holder in Bid to Be Attorney General

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Economy

Poll: Becerra Widens His Lead Over Hilton; Californians Split on Wealth Tax

A new Public Policy Institute of California poll shows Democrat Xavier Becerra leads Republican Steve Hilton by 22 points in California’s governor’s race, with 60% of likely voters supporting Becerra compared to 38% for Hilton. The September survey also reveals Californians are closely divided on a proposed one-time tax on billionaires, with 52% of likely voters in favor of Proposition 40. Affordability issues are a major factor for voters. Read more to learn about the poll’s additional findings on voter sentiment.

Published

2 days ago

September 28, 2026

Post News Group

Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Democrat Xavier Becerra holds a 22-point lead over Republican Steve Hilton in California’s governor’s race, while voters remain closely divided over a proposed one-time tax on billionaires, according to a new Public Policy Institute of California poll.

The September PPIC survey found that 60% of likely voters support Becerra, compared with 38% for Hilton. His lead is actually narrower than it was in July, when he led Hilton 61% to 36%.

Becerra leads among independent voters, with 57% supporting him compared with 38% for Hilton. Party loyalty remains strong, with 93% of Democratic likely voters backing Becerra and 92% of Republicans supporting Hilton.

Hilton leads in the Central Valley, where 52% of likely voters support him compared with 46% for Becerra.

Affordability remains a major factor: 65% of likely voters say candidates’ plans to address cost-of-living issues are “very important” to their vote.

“Affordability continues to be top of mind for Californians when considering their choice for governor,” said Mark Baldassare, PPIC Statewide Survey director and Miller Chair in Public Policy.

The poll also found a narrow split over Proposition 40, a proposed one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers with assets exceeding $1 billion. Fifty-two percent of likely voters said they would vote yes, while 46% said they would vote no.

Support for the wealth tax varies sharply by party. Seventy-two percent of Democrats favor Proposition 40, compared with 46% of independents and 21% of Republicans.

Two competing measures also drew majority support. Fifty-one percent back Proposition 41, while 54% support Proposition 42, both of which could affect the wealth-tax proposal.

The findings come as Californians express broader frustration with the state’s political direction. Seventy-one percent of likely voters expect bad economic times in California over the next year.

“Californians are clearly grumpy and aren’t enamored with any particular political party or movement,” Baldassare said.

The survey interviewed 1,745 California adults, including 1,103 likely voters, from Sept. 4-10. The margin of error for likely voters is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Community

LIVE FREE Sunday Dinner Brings Faith, Fellowship and Civic Conversation to Oakland

Approximately 50 members and guests gathered at Imani Community Church for a LIVE FREE Sunday Dinner, sharing a meal with Pastor Michael McBride. The event, hosted by Imani Community Church Pastor Jeremy McCants, focused on faith, community preparedness, and civic participation. Participants discussed “sacred resistance” and how communities can collectively respond to challenges, including practical suggestions for emergencies. The conversation also touched upon the importance of civic engagement and voting in the upcoming election. Read more to learn about the specific actions discussed.

Published

2 days ago

September 27, 2026

Post News Group

Imani Social Justice Team (left to right): Angela Noel, Zakiya Jendayi and Diane Doss. Patty Hallm, Susan Burns, Diane Lewis, Pastor Michael McBride, Theresa ???, Jean Moses and Diana Bell. Front: Sloane Johnson and (man whose name I'm getting to complete the identification). Photo by Octavian Kelly.

By Tanya Dennis

Pastor Michael McBride joins Imani Community Church Members for Food, Faith and Conversation about Community Action

Approximately 50 members and guests of Imani Community Church gathered Sunday afternoon for a LIVE FREE Sunday Dinner, sharing a meal with Pastor Michael McBride while discussing faith, community preparedness and civic participation.

Hosted by Imani Community Church Pastor Jeremy McCants, the Sept. 20 gathering was part of LIVE FREE’s Sunday Dinner initiative, which draws upon the tradition of families, neighbors and faith communities gathering around the Sunday dinner table to break bread and discuss issues affecting their lives.

McBride is founder of LIVE FREE and lead pastor of The Way Christian Center on University Avenue in Berkeley. His Bay Area ministry has deep roots. The congregation traces its history to a church planted by McBride’s grandmother in 1969. McBride returned to the Bay Area in 2005 and became its fourth pastor.

His ministry later expanded into community organizing and national advocacy. McBride founded LIVE FREE in 2011 following organizing work in Oakland and has been involved in efforts addressing gun violence, mass incarceration and civic engagement.

At Imani, the Sunday dinner concept was simple: sit down together, eat together and talk.

McBride recalled a time when Sunday dinner provided families and neighbors an opportunity to discuss what was happening in their communities. LIVE FREE has adapted that tradition into gatherings where faith communities and neighbors can meet, communicate, and consider how to respond collectively to current challenges.

Much of Sunday’s conversation centered on what McBride described as “sacred resistance,” bringing faith into discussions about how communities respond during difficult and uncertain times.

Participants considered a fundamental question: How do we make sense of what is happening around us, and how do we move forward?

The conversation was grounded in faith and prayer, but participants also discussed action and preparation. Attendees talked about not assuming that institutions and everyday systems will always function as expected.

Practical suggestions included keeping basic food staples such as rice and beans available during emergencies. Participants cited the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, as an example as they discussed communities that have experienced disruptions to essential services.

The broader message was one of preparedness and connection: neighbors should know and support one another before a crisis occurs.

The conversation also turned to civic participation and the upcoming election.

McBride’s message was brief: “Vote. We must vote.”

Participants were encouraged to register to vote, verify that their registration is current, and learn what will appear on their ballots. The discussion included researching candidates and ballot measures, voting early, and making a voting plan.

An Oct. 3 workshop was announced as another opportunity for community members to learn more about candidates, volunteer phone banking, ballot measures, and issues before voters.

For Imani’s Social Justice Team, the gathering provided another opportunity to share information with the congregation and surrounding community regarding Imani member Zakiya Jendayi, fighting for her home, and how the community can support her by attending a vigil at her Oakland home every Tuesday from 6-7 p.m. at 3614 Randolph Ave. 94610.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Black History

Caribbean Nations Produce Action Plan Calling for UK Reparations Over Slavery

Caribbean nations are developing an action plan with legal options to press the United Kingdom for negotiations regarding slavery reparations. Officials at a recent conference indicated that regional leaders hope for targeted talks at upcoming Commonwealth and UN summits. However, if diplomatic efforts are resisted, the Caribbean nations are prepared to pursue international court action. A spokesperson for the British government recently reiterated its long-held position against paying reparations. Read more about the unified strategy being pursued.

Published

2 days ago

September 27, 2026

Post News Group

Bussa Emancipation Statue in Bridgetown, Barbados. Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

By Post Staff

Caribbean nations are producing an “action plan” with legal options to push the United Kingdom (UK) into negotiating a decades-long slavery reparations deal, according to officials at a reparations conference.

Leaders in the region are hoping the UK would agree to targeted and constructive negotiation talks at upcoming Commonwealth and UN summits, but they are ready to take the matter to international courts if Britain continues to resist diplomatic options, according to the Guardian.

Earlier this month, a spokesperson reiterated the British government’s long‑held position that “the UK does not and will not pay reparations”.

Ralph Gonsalves, the former prime minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, said the Caricom Regional Conference on Reparations, which was hosted last week by Barbados with the Caricom Reparations Commission (CRC), was key for agreeing to a unified strategy to bring Britain to the negotiating table. Gonsalves is now an elder and adviser for the Repair Campaign, a social movement for reparatory justice.

He said that slavery happened over centuries and reparations had to be realistic and set over decades. “We need a concrete, multigenerational plan,” he said.

On the legal options available to the Caribbean, Gonsalves challenged arguments that Britain did not violate historical laws during transatlantic slavery, adding that the UK’s signature on contemporary UN conventions had established a binding legal obligation for reparative justice.

“The fact is that the consequences of slavery fall squarely under the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which obliges states to help address the consequences of native genocide and slavery,” Gonsalves said.