Wednesday, July 3, 2019


Julian Castro: Increase Refugee Intake from 30,000 to 110,000 Annually

By Melanie Arter | July 1, 2019 | 3:08 PM EDT

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
( – Former HUD Secretary Julian Castro told ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopolous” he’d like to see the limit for taking in refugees raised to its statutory limit of 110,000 people a year.

“You talk about safety and opportunity at home, and you have called for that Marshall Plan for Central America, but what is your limiting principle on allowing people in and giving them asylum? There are wide swathes of the entire world mired in poverty … in areas where there's high crime. Anyone who's facing that kind of poverty, that kind of crime should get asylum?” Stephanopolous asked.

“No, and that's not the system that we have now. We have a system to consider asylum claims based on certain criteria where people either qualify for asylum or they don't. You know, I agree with people that say, look, in theory can we take everyone who would like to be in the United States? Nobody has called for that. I do believe, however, and I’ve put forward an immigration plan that would accept more people,” Castro said.

“I'll give you an example of that, by statute for the late '70s, early '80s, we can take in 110,000 refugees annually. Right now, we're only taking in between 30,000 and 40,000 refugees. I would like to see that go up to the statutory limit. So, nobody has called for unlimited number of people coming to this country, but I do believe that we should expand that significantly, and we're big enough to do that,” he said.

“There have been times in our history in this country where we were taking in a lot more people and we become a stronger nation for it. What has underlined this, and what the president likes to count on, is the fear and the paranoia that he's stoking. I refuse to believe, because it's not true, that the people that are coming because they're desperate, lot of them women and children, represent some sort of national security threat or cultural threat to this country. That's bull,” Castro said.

Rep. Rose: ‘Less than 5%’ of $4.6B Funding Bill Will Help ‘Reduce the Plague of Illegal Immigration’

Cody Leach
By Cody Leach | July 2, 2019 | 4:05 PM EDT

Rep. John Rose
“Indeed, less than five percent of the funds that we approved will have a realistic impact on reducing the plague of illegal immigration that faces our country," said Representative John Rose (R-Tenn.) last Thursday after the House passed a bill providing $4.6 billion bill to address the crisis at the U.S. southwest border.
Rep. Rose used his allotted one-minute time addressing the House to tell his colleagues that the $4.6 billion funding package, which President Donald Trump signed into law on Monday, doesn't address "the real crux of the problem at our southern border":
“We should not confuse that the action that the House took today addresses the real crux of the problem at our southern border. Indeed, less than five percent of the funds that we approved will have a realistic impact on reducing the plague of illegal immigration that faces our country.”
Rose called on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to support funding of border wall construction and "send a clear message around the world that this country intends to enforce its borders and enforce its immigration laws."
The Congressman's full remarks are presented below.
"Today the House joined the Senate in approving almost $4.6 billion in taxpayer money to address the growing security and humanitarian crisis at our southern border.
“We all share sympathy for the children and individuals who find themselves in suffering conditions at our southern border, but we should not confuse that the action that the House took today addresses the real crux of the problem at our southern border. Indeed, less than five percent of the funds that we approved will have a realistic impact on reducing the plague of illegal immigration that faces our country.
“I call upon my colleagues and I call upon the Speaker, upon our return after the Independence Day recess, to take up this issue and send a clear message around the world that this country intends to enforce its borders and enforce its immigration laws.
“And, I support and call upon the Speaker to allow us to provide the funding to build a wall at our southern border and support the President's efforts to control illegal immigration."

Ann Coulter: Surprise! That 'cheap' immigrant labor costs us a lot


We could pay for every idiotic boondoggle proposed by the 300 Democratic presidential candidates if the current president would simply keep his central campaign promise to build a border wall and deport illegal aliens. (Back off — “illegal alien” is the term used in federal law.) 


A 2017 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) found that illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer — on net — $116 billion a year.
That’s pretty high, but the actual number is more likely triple that.
Straight out of the chute, FAIR assumes that there are only 12.5 million illegal immigrants in the country, approximately the same number we’ve been told for the last 15 years as we impotently watched hundreds of thousands more stream across our border, year after year after year.
The 12 million figure is based on the self-reports of illegal aliens to U.S. census questionnaires. (Hello! I’m from the federal government. Did you break the law to enter our country? Now tell the truth! We have no way of knowing the answer, and if you say yes, you could be subjecting yourself to immediate deportation.)

More serious studies put the number considerably higher. At the low end, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale study last year put the number of illegals at 22 million. Yet Bear Stearns investment bank had it at 20 million back in 2005, and Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele reported in 2004 that 3 million illegals were crossing each year — so simple math would put it at well over 60 million today.
So, right there, the FAIR study underestimates the tab for illegal immigration by at least a factor of three, meaning the real cost is about $350 billion a year. That’s triple what Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) free college tuition plan will cost in a decade.
I don’t mean to bash FAIR. It’s sweet how immigration restrictionists always bend over backward to be impartial. But their circumspection doesn’t mean the rest of us have to ignore reality.
Journalists’ usual method of determining the cost of “unauthorized entries” — as they say — is to phone some fanatically pro-illegal immigration group, such as Cato or CASA, and get a quote sneering at anyone else’s estimate of the costs.
In a deeply investigated 2017 Washington Post article, for example, the Post cited the “belief” that illegal aliens “drain government resources.” Without looking at any facts or figures, the reporter disputed that “belief” with a quote from Cathryn Ann Paul of CASA: "It's a myth that people who are undocumented don't pay taxes."
So there you have it! Cathryn Ann Paul says it’s a “myth.” Now let’s move on to the vibrant diversity being gifted to us by illegal aliens.
Earlier this year, The New York Times mocked President Trump’s tweet saying illegal immigration costs "250 Billion Dollars a year" by quoting big-business shill Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute: "There's no basis to any of those numbers about the fiscal cost." Am I doing OK, Mr. Koch?
The Times further explained that Trump’s figure “did not take into account the economic benefits of undocumented immigrants” — for example, the surprisingly affordable maids of some reporters.
Randy Capps of the Migration Policy Institute told the Times that studies of the cost of illegal immigration count only the costs or only the benefits. “They tend to talk past each other, unfortunately,” he said.

Well, the FAIR study counted both. For every dollar illegal immigrants pay in taxes — fees, Social Security withholding taxes, fuel surcharges, sales and property taxes — they collect $7 in government benefits: schooling, English as a second language classes, hospital costs, school lunch programs, Medicaid births, police resources and so on.
A few years ago, the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector looked at the winners and losers under our government redistribution system and found that in 2010, households headed by illegal immigrants received $14,387 more in government services than they paid in taxes.
Legal immigrant households also were big winners, receiving $4,344 more in government services than they paid in taxes. (Our government does a fantastic job deciding who can immigrate here.)
Only with nonimmigrant households does the government almost break even, doling out a mere $310 more in benefits than those households pay in taxes. (Surprise! The deficit is on track to hit $1 trillion next year.)
Like FAIR estimates, Rector’s study accepted the U.S. Census Bureau’s allegation that we’ve had the same number of illegal aliens in this country since the beginning of the Bush administration. Also like the FAIR study, Rector’s examination counted only the obvious costs imposed on us by illegal immigrants — things such as health care, education, fire and police protection, parks, roads, and bridges.

But there are all sorts of costs that no one ever
counts. What about Americans’ lost wages to
illegal immigrants who are willing to work for
$7 an hour? Even if they don’t apply for
unemployment insurance, how do we count the
cost of suicide, opioid addiction or other anti-
social behavior? 

Why not count the lost wages themselves? We want to know the cost-benefit ratio to those already here, not to the new total that includes the illegal immigrants. If it's a net negative to those already here — well, that's the point.
And what was the tab of illegal immigration to the family of Kate Steinle, the young woman shot dead by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco in 2015? There were obvious, tragic costs, of course — but there also are hidden costs, such as the lost productivity of the people close to Kate for years to come, the additional police presence around the San Francisco pier where she was killed and the reduction in tourist dollars.
We hear about the great largesse bestowed upon us by illegal immigrants all day long. The only hidden benefits are the warm feelings of self-righteousness that the CASA spokesman gets when bleating about illegals and the happiness that cheap servants bring to the top 10 percent.
In Maine, overdose deaths from opioids, mostly Mexican heroin, have skyrocketed in the last decade, up from an already catastrophic 100 to 200 deaths per year to more than double that — 418 in 2018. What is the cost of the state legislature spending weeks debating a bill to provide heroin addicts with Narcan? The cost of more crime and more police?
This isn’t to gratuitously mention the fact that completely unvetted, self-chosen illegal immigrants can, in fact, be rapists, drug dealers and cop-killers. It is to say that no analysis of illegal immigration’s cost can ever capture the full price.

Ann Coulter is a lawyer, a syndicated columnist and conservative commentator, and the author of 13 New York Times bestsellers. The most recent, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind,” was published in 2018. 


Nolte: Dems Promise to Take Away Our Health Insurance and Give It to Illegal Aliens
"The California dream of taking care of everyone's needs is 

undermined by the California dream of open borders. State lawmakers were forced to  choose between them, and they chose open borders.”  

Democrats Circling the Electoral Drain

Democrats have convinced themselves that they represent the sentiments of a majority of Americans. Watching the recent Democrat presidential debates, one cannot help but conclude the opposite.
Rather than looking beyond their liberal coastal enclaves to the fruited plain filled with deplorables and bitter clingers, Democrats simply look in the mirror of CNN or the Washington Post to see complete agreement, believing that all of America is on board with their wrecking ball agenda.
The debates featured the 20 best candidates the Democrats could field to challenge the success and charisma of President Trump. Assuming a fifty-fifty political split in America, and the age requirement for the presidency, there should be 50-75 million potential Democrats to step up and challenge Trump. Yet these 20 candidates are the best out there?
We have nonagenarians who have been in government for decades with no accomplishments to their names other than getting elected. Most of the candidates are so far to the political left that they should be running as socialists, or better yet, communists. The only thing separating the candidates are their looks and personalities. They all sing the same tune.                                                                                   
Their favored constituencies are not Americans, but instead anyone outside America’s borders, invited into America to live at the expense of American taxpayers. Robert O’Rourke is even campaigning in Mexico, to be president, not of Mexico, but of the United States.
Democrats want to get rid of private health care insurance for Americans and instead provide free government health care to illegal immigrants. Non-Americans go to the front of the line while Americans can’t even join the line.
One candidate couldn’t even be bothered with policy specifics, instead channeling the Beatles “All you need is love” to solve the world’s problems.
What do those outside the beltway think? Are they on board with America going the way of California, as a detour to the ultimate destination of Cuba or Venezuela?
Rasmussen Reports on June 28 published survey results concluding, “Voters see most Democrat presidential hopefuls as more liberal, extreme.” This was a survey of likely voters, 80 percent of whom say they have “closely followed the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.”
These are real voters, not your typical man or woman on the street that many pollsters query, who when interviewed, don’t know if John Hickenlooper is a former Colorado governor or the name of a new brand of popcorn.
From the survey, “Nearly half (48%) of voters now feel it is accurate to describe the agenda of most of the Democratic presidential hopefuls as extreme.” Democrat voters, the base for the twenty candidates on the debate stage, are mostly on board with this lurch to the left, “57% of Democrats think it is accurate to describe the agenda of most of their presidential hopefuls as mainstream.”
What do the other 43 percent of Democrats think? How many might vote for Trump rather than someone wanting to Make America Soviet Again?
Independents, who will in large part decide the 2020 electoral winner, were not impressed with the two-evening clown show last week. “Fifty-eight percent (58%) of these so-called swing voters view most of the announced Democratic White House hopefuls as more liberal than they are, and by a 49% to 29% margin, they say the agenda of most of these candidates is extreme.”
For NBC debate moderators and hardcore Democrats, open borders, free healthcare for illegals, and trans-men having abortions is perfectly mainstream. Extremism to them is record low unemployment, three percent economic growth, and the American President visiting North Korea.
Here they are raising their hands in unison supporting healthcare for illegals.
For most Americans, extreme is when a journalist is attacked and beaten by Antifa thugs in Portland. But for rabid Democrats, it’s justified or deserved since the journalist is conservative, ignoring the fact that he is Asian and gay. Note the far different response when a gay black actor, Jussie Smollett, claimed to have been attacked in Chicago.
Despite Smollett’s story being full of holes, and quickly proven to be a hoax, the left came to his defense. Ngo’s attack was anything but a hoax, having been captured on video, yet only crickets from tolerant and inclusive Democrats. Will Democrat presidential candidates be asked to raise their hands to denounce Antifa, the new militant arm of their party? Not likely. How many voters want this type of extremism as the new norm in American cities?
Hard core leftists however think this is all just fine. Stephanie Wilkinson, owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia, who kicked out Sarah Sanders and her family, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post extolling the new leftist restaurant etiquette. “New rules apply. If you’re directly complicit in spreading hate or perpetuating suffering, maybe you should consider dining at home. For the rest, your table is waiting.”
In other words, if you support President Trump, stay home. You are not welcome at our lunch counters or restaurants. Sit in the back of the bus. Democrats are going back to their segregationist roots, discriminating now based on political belief rather than skin color. Unless of course you are Candace Owens or Ben Carson getting a double dose of discrimination.
Democrats believe this is a winning message. Agree with us or go away, voluntarily or forcefully, in Orwellian fashion. Joseph Stalin would be proud.
Democrats are pushing the issues important to MSNBC and the New York Times, but not to voters. Also from Rasmussen in mid-May, a survey of the most pressing issues for Congress. These don’t include Trump’s past tax returns or a rehash of the Mueller investigation, but instead 35 percent of likely voters “rate illegal immigration as the issue Congress should deal with first.”
Guess what Trump’s signatures issue is? Illegal immigration. Stopping it, not encouraging it by offering free healthcare to anyone who makes it across our border.
Next of importance for Congress, “Healthcare is in distant second with 19% support, closely followed by 16% who see Trump’s impeachment as first in importance.”
Voters want our healthcare system to be fixed, but not in the way of Democrats wanting to eliminate private insurance. Some Democrats in Congress are listening to voters’ third priority of impeachment, mostly Democrats, but the few voices of sanity in the Democrat party realize impeachment is a loser for them.
Democrat presidential candidates find themselves on the wrong side of almost every issue of concern to voters. Rather than acknowledging and correcting, they lurch further and further to the left, trying to be more socialist and woke than the other candidates, digging themselves into a deeper hole for the general election.
It’s a sight to behold as they continue to circle the electoral drain, oblivious to anything outside the beltway media and each other. Trump’s campaign commercials are writing themselves and upcoming Trump rallies and presidential debates will be most entertaining. Have your popcorn ready.

Eliseo Medina: Revolution Through Illegal Immigration


 “Before immigration debates took place in Washington, I spoke with Eliseo Medina and SEIU members,” said then-Sen. Barack Obamaaddressing the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at a stop for his 2008 presidential campaign.

Eliseo Medina, Obama’s informal immigration adviser, has dedicated his life to obtaining citizenship and voting rights for America’s illegal aliens—now at an estimated 22 million—with the expressed goal of transforming the United States into a one-party state.
As a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) supporter and former honorary chair of the largest Marxist organization in the United States, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Medina is undeniably the leader of today’s amnesty movement.
At the far-left “America’s Future Now!” conference in Washington on June 2, 2009, Medina, then SEIU’s international executive vice president, addressed attendees on the vital importance of “comprehensive immigration reform”—a code phrase for amnesty.

“So, I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community:
“Number one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That will solidify and expand the progressive coalition for the future.
“If we have 8 million new voters … we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”
Medina’s “governing coalition” refers to Democrats having control of the federal government for the foreseeable future, “not just for an election cycle.”

Who Is Eliseo Medina?

Medina‘s road to power began in 1965 when, as a 19-year-old grape-picker, he participated in the United Farm Workers’ strike in Delano, California. Over the next 13 years, Medina worked alongside labor leader and beloved socialist Cesar Chavez, eventually surpassing his mentor as a skilled union organizer and political strategist. Medina met his future wife Liza Hirsch during this period.
Medina had met Chicago DSA comrades in the 1970s when he was in the Windy City organizing a grape boycott for Chavez. From 2004 until 2016, Medina served as an honorary chairman for the organization.
Like many DSA members, Medina also worked closely with the CPUSA.
Medina gave the keynote speech at the CPUSA publication’s People’s Weekly World (PWW) banquet in Berkeley, California, on Nov. 18, 2001.
The PWW quoted Medina praising the communist publication: “’Wherever workers are in struggle,’ Medina said, ‘they find the PWW regularly reporting issues and viewpoints that are seldom covered by the regular media. For us, the PWW has been and always will be the people’s voice.’”
In 2007, Medina personally endorsed the People’s World (by then renamed from People’s Weekly World).

Medina’s Wife and Flexible Socialist Ethics

Medina’s wife, Liza, is the daughter of Fred Hirsch, a self-described “communist plumber” and his even-more-radical wife, Virginia, known as Ginny. In the early 1960s, Ginny Hirsch left her husband and young children in San Jose while she drove to Guatemala with nearly a ton of smuggled ammunition destined for leftist rebels.
From the age of 12, Liza Hirsch was partially raised by Cesar Chavez and, at his personal request, committed herself at an early age to earning a law degree so she could serve as an attorney for the movement.
Though a sometimes-socialist himself, Chavez had no time for illegal aliens (who he dubbed “wet-backs”) fearing they would “scab” against his strikes and take jobs from his members. Chavez even launched an “Illegals Campaign”—an organized program to identify illegal alien workers in the fields and turn them in to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
Hirsch was put in charge of this program. In 1974, just before she went to law school, she “distributed forms printed in triplicate to all union offices and directed staff members to document the presence of illegal immigrants in the fields and report them to the INS,” according to the book “The Crusades of Cesar Chavez” by Miriam Pawel.
Hirsch would later marry New York DSA member Paul Du Brul. After his untimely death, she married Medina, also a card-carrying DSA member by then.
Socialist ethics can be very flexible.

Changing the Democrat Position to Pro-Amnesty


Medina joined the SEIU in 1986, where he helped revive a local union in San Diego, building its membership from 1,700 to more than 10,000 in five years. Medina became international executive vice president of the 2.2 million-member SEIU in 1996.
The SEIU has a huge number of illegal alien workers in its ranks. Medina used that leverage to promote amnesty in the union movement, as well as in the organized left and in the Democratic Party.
In the mid-1990s, most unions were still hostile to illegal alien workers who worked at a much lower rate, taking jobs away from union members. But in 1994, several far-left union leaders led by DSA member John Sweeney took over the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), setting the stage for a major policy change for the unions—and ultimately for the Democrats.
Claiming U.S. immigration policy was “broken and [needed] to be fixed,” the AFL-CIO on Feb. 16, 2000, called for a new amnesty for millions of undocumented workers and the repeal of the 1986 legislation that criminalized hiring them.
According to the DSA website in 2004, Medina was “widely credited with playing a key role in the AFL-CIO’s decision to adopt a new policy on immigration a few years ago.”
From his union position, Medina reached across the labor movement into the social movements and the Catholic Church to create the widest possible pro-amnesty coalition.
According to the SEIU:
In August 2008, the Obama campaign announced the formation of its National Latino Advisory Council. The new body consisted of several Democratic Congress members, a Catholic bishop, a former ambassador, two former cabinet members, and Medina.
After the election, Medina became Obama’s informal adviser on issues concerning immigration and amnesty. The fact that a DSA member and CPUSA supporter was advising the U.S. president on issues of vital national security importance appeared to concern no one.
Eventually, Medina and his movement were able to get an amnesty bill passed through the U.S. Senate. If they could only pass a bill through the House, the United States would be set on an irreversible path to socialism.

Fortunately, Tea Party-aligned Republican Congress members refused to sell out their nation. They held the line against intense pressure, and no amnesty bill was passed through the House in Obama’s eight years in the White House.

‘Fast for Families’

In November 2013, Medina, along with Cristian Avila of amnesty advocacy group Mi Familia Vota and Dae Jung Yoon of the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium (a hard-left group that supports communist North Korea), started a 22-day “fast for families” in front of Capitol Hill “to demand Congress approve comprehensive immigration reform,” according to People’s World.
The staged protest gained worldwide media attention. Several Democratic members of Congress dropped by to offer support, along with then-President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden.
Still, House Republicans did not budge.
On May 17, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign announced that long-time DSA activist Dolores Huerta and Medina would join the team as senior advisers in California.
“Huerta and Medina will build on the campaign’s robust outreach to the Latino community in California and work with the campaign’s senior team to organize and engage Californians in conversations about Hillary Clinton’s plans to break down barriers and help move the country forward.
“’We are thrilled to be joined by two incredibly accomplished and admired leaders in the Latino, immigrant and labor communities, Dolores Huerta and Eliseo Medina,’ said Buffy Wicks, State Director for Hillary for California. ‘Their advocacy and leadership … will go a long way in continuing the important work of reaching every California voter in advance of the June 7 primary.’”
Clinton promised to introduce a “pathway to full and equal citizenship” to legalize and grant voting rights to every illegal alien in the country “within 100 days of taking office” if she were to be elected president.
Had President Donald Trump not won his shocking victory on Nov. 6, 2016, Medina’s dream of a permanent, unbeatable progressive “governing coalition” would today be a reality, making it virtually impossible to elect another Republican president.

With Democrats drunkenly denying a border crisis, NYT attempts an intervention

For alcoholics, the first step to recovery is to admit they have a problem.
The New York Times is trying to get Democrats to admit they have a problem on the U.S.'s southern border and is now calling for funds to be appropriated for detention beds.
It wrote this unusual editorial to that end:
President Trump is right: There is a crisis at the southern border. Just not the one he rants about.
There is no pressing national security threat — no invasion of murderers, drug cartels or terrorists. No matter how often Mr. Trump delivers such warnings, they bear little resemblance to the truth.
But as record numbers of Central American families flee violence and poverty in their homelands, they are overwhelming United States border systems, fueling a humanitarian crisis of overcrowding, disease and chaos. The Border Patrol is now averaging 1,200 daily arrests, with many migrants arriving exhausted and sick. Last week, a teenage boy from Guatemala died in government custody, the third death of a minor since December. As resources are strained and the system buckles, the misery grows.
Something needs to be done. Soon. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship once again threatens to hold up desperately needed resources.
Needs, indeed.  After all, about a third of Guatemala would like to come here and are planning accordingly.  The paper of record likes to be a little ahead of the news.
And what's more, as a de facto partisan arm of the Democratic Party most of the time, it probably sees the proverbial writing on the 2020 wall, given that there's no real wall right now.
I'm a bit less willing to praise the paper for the particulars of its stance.  The authors are calling for cash for better detention facilities to accommodate all the illegal border-crossers, which sounds like a downwind patch-up solution to the far more effective ones that House Democrats could do without appropriating any money — such as by reducing the incentives to emigrate illegally by reforming loopholes in U.S. asylum law.  How about: 'If you can't be bothered to apply legally to enter the U.S., then back you go.'  Or: 'If you refuse to apply for asylum at a U.S. port of entry because you want instant customer service, then back of the line, pal.'  Exceptions can be carved out for nationals seeking asylum from places that do not permit free travel, such as North Korea, the nationals of whom our current asylum laws were written for.  The Times' call for more comfortable accommodations for foreigners crossing into the U.S. without authorization sounds like yet another incentive to come here illegally, though it could give border agents some time to sort out who's a professional criminal, or who's renting a kid to get let out of detention early, and who isn't.
Even a wall would be a better solution than the weak tea of better detention cells for migrants the Times calls for.
And as Laura Ingraham notes here — the Times is wrong about the unvetted migration headed to the U.S. containing few or no criminals.

I’m at border with @CBP agents now—they just said @nytimes 100 percent wrong that there’s “There is no pressing nat’l security threat — no invasion of murderers, drug cartels or terrorists.“ 

Opinion | Congress, Give Trump His Border Money

Border Patrol agents say they're seeing the crooks all over — criminals, of course, don't do things legally.
That said, the Times editorial is still pretty revolutionary.  Democrats have been denying for years that there's any crisis at the border, growing ever more shrill and irrational the more the evidence piles up — from crime wages by illegal aliens to welfare and other state costs to the specter of illegal immigrants openly ballot-harvesting in California to flip the House to the Democrats and their champions on the Left fighting in courts an innocuous census question about citizenship.
Illegals are a source of power for Democrats.  They have a political interest in denying a crisis.  For them, it's a party, and nobody had better take away that punch bowl...
But there really is a crisis — and the Times has noticed.  And its reporters on the ground probably also notice that the issue could cost Democrats the entire election in 2020.  With the Times serving as the Democratic Party's narrative-master, this looks like an intervention.  Now maybe the Democratic drunks at the illegals table will be forced to take the first step toward sobriety — by admitting a problem.



Democrats on Border Crisis: Help Migrants, Not American Wage-Earners


Border agencies should provide even more help to Central American migrants, top Democrats said in response to the White House’s emergency funding request to manage the migration inflow.

The support for migrants came after the White House asked for $4.5 billion to help process the growing flood of economic migrants from Central America.
“As a country, we must do more to meet the needs of migrants – especially children and families – who are arriving in increasing numbers,” said a statement by Rep. Nita Lowey, chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee. She urged the administration to speed up the release of the migrants:
However, the Trump administration appears to want much of this $4.5 billion emergency supplemental request to double down on cruel and ill-conceived policies, including bailing out ICE for overspending on detention beds and expanding family detention. Locking up people who pose no threat to the community for ever-longer periods of time is not a solution to the problems at the border.
“This crisis is one largely of the Trump Administration’s own making,” claimed Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. His statement also urged the border agencies to release the migrants at a faster pace into the U.S. labor market:
We will not appropriate more funds that will add to the chaos and make the problem worse … this request holds a number of non-starters – such as doubling down on the Administration’s cruel and failed policies including mass detention. There is no reason to lock up thousands who pose no threat, especially in an already-strained system.
Thompson said Democrats were ready to provide more aid to the foreign migrants: “House Democrats understand that there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, and we stand ready and willing to provide necessary resources to help fix this challenge and alleviate the suffering of thousands.”
Lowey declared Democrats as guardians of the nation’s values. “House Democrats take seriously our responsibility to uphold our values and secure our borders,” Lowey said.
The growing wave of migrants is forcing down Americans’ wages in U.S. blue-collar workplaces and is weakening education for Americans kids in blue-collar schools.
The Democrats’ opposition to border security reflects the pro-migration views of their coalition, which includes wealthy progressives and poor, government-dependent families.


Why are Democrats opposing Americans in every way?


With the rejection of President Trump’s latest border security compromise Democrats have rejected security for Americans on many different levels.
This set of rejections adds to the growing list of recent weeks in which nearly every decision they make works against the citizens of the United States.
Even after repeated compromises (President Trump moving to a “steel slat” and away from a “wall”) and self-admissions of a barrier’s effectiveness (House Majority Leader Hoyer confessing “well of course walls work,”) they continue to harbor anti-American values and sentiment in their approach towards the current crisis.
Thus far they have rejected the number one demand of the voters in 2016 to reinforce our southern border with a permanent barrier.
They have decided that in order to ensure that they prevent such a barrier from being built that they would prefer to starve government workers merely to spite the American people.
They also decided to attempt to block the President’s lawful right to update the American people on the progress of the nation and what his administration intends to accomplish in 2109.
All three of these moves intentionally hurts Americans, leaves them less safe, and attempts to leave them uninformed in a nation that guarantees transparency.
In rejecting President Trump’s offer on Saturday they went a few steps further.
Besides the paltry sum of $5.7 billion he is requesting for the border barrier (paltry because the Democrats approved $40 billion during the Obama administration for identical purposes) they also rejected a few other key points.
A key point they are now rejecting (that they previously begged for—though this is the third time the President has offered it) is an extension of protections on nearly 700,000 “dreamers” (non-citizens who entered the country illegally but of no fault of their own due to ages at the time.) Rejecting these protections now for a third time, DACA kids really should ask themselves, “Who in this debate is honestly thinking about what’s best for me?”
An additional offer from the President would extend protections for 300,000 additional persons whose home countries are too dangerous to guarantee a safe return. The TPS offer when coupled with the DACA kids provides protections for nearly 1,000,000 non-citizens that evidently the Democrats for all their big talk of compassion don’t appear to give two hoots about.
His offer also includes close to a billion dollars in updated drug detection technology to be placed exclusively at ports of entry to obviously bring to a halt the flow of more than 90% of the heroin entering the country. This heroin is killing upwards of 300 of our children per week.
His proposal also wants to offer more Americans jobs, increasing the ranks of our border agents by more than 2700. He also pledged more law enforcement to assist the border agents for necessary manpower to actually secure the border and shut down illegal activity and persons attempting to harm America.
And for all those who are deeply concerned about the legitimate asylum seekers trying to eke out a better life in America, his program would provide 75 additional immigration judges to specifically lessen the wait times and backlog of asylum seekers.
Beyond this specific package he even dangled the willingness to bring to the table comprehensive immigration reform in short order.
So now Democrats aren’t merely opposing (with great hostility) the supporters of the President, the Republicans in Congress and the Senate, conservatives across the nation and at least half of the American voters.
Now they are also punishing 800,000 government workers (who largely voted for them.) 
They are punishing the families whose lives have been and will be impacted by the continuing flow of heroin into our communities, along with the 300 families every week (15,000+ annually) whose children are dying from it.
They have now thrice rejected protections for a million seeking safe haven in America including 700,000 children who found themselves here through no choice that they made.
And they are preventing from the future security of thousands of asylum seekers, and most significantly the citizens of the nation itself with a truly secured border.
The Democrats are opposing Americans, those who wish to be Americans, and those that find themselves stuck somewhere in between.
The important question that each American should ask...
Is why?


“Cheap labor” is anything but cheap.

January 2, 2019

For decades the United States government, on all levels, has betrayed its own citizens, promoting open borders policies that have come to undermine national security, public safety, public health, and jobs and wages for American workers.
The massive influx of alien children who lack English language proficiency also has a profound impact on the education of American kids.  Increasingly schools across the United States are forced to provide costly ESL (English as a Second Language) services draining funds that could and should be used to provide quality education for American children.  Additionally, as autism rates soar and with it the growing need for special services and early intervention for such learning challenged children, money that should be spent on those vital programs that could help so many of those children live better and more productive lives is being used, instead, to fund those ESL programs for illegal aliens and frequently the children of illegal aliens who do not speak English in their homes.
When early intervention is withheld from at-risk students, the results are frequently catastrophic, yet with all of the emotional arguments posed by the immigration anarchists who call for compassion for illegal aliens, their calls for compassion utterly disregard the plight of American children. 
Open borders policies permit huge numbers of foreign workers to enter the United States and displace American workers, not because American’s “won’t do these jobs” as claimed by the duplicitous politicians, but because these foreign workers are willing to accept lower wages and worse conditions than would the American workers whom they displace.
We can all think back to the days when we were growing up and sought our very first jobs to provide us with some spending money, enabling us to put our foot on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
We often encountered the conundrum of not being able to get a job without a reference.  In order to get a reference we had to have a previous employer vouch for us.  This made getting that very first job all the more difficult and, at the same time, all the more important.
I remember my first job, when I was 14 yeas old, working during my summer vacation in a Kosher delicatessen, a short bike ride from home in Brooklyn where I washed dishes, fried potatoes and served hot dogs at the counter, waited on tables and delivered sandwiches to the women who spent hours at the nearby beauty parlors.
It was exciting and empowering to be earning money instead of asking my parents for an allowance.  Although I didn’t realize it at the time, that job also provided me with an education in life lessons, teaching me to be responsible, punctual and take instructions from an employer.  That job also taught me the value of money, I was far less likely to squander money when I had to work so hard to earn it.
Finally, that job provided me with that important first reference that helped me get other jobs in the future as I climbed the economic ladder to a successful life.
Many of my friends also worked in nearby restaurants. Brooklyn has no shortage of great places to eat, often small “mom and pop” restaurants and everyone of those establishments routinely hired teenagers and college students who were desperate to earn money.
Today most of those jobs in all too many local restaurants and other businesses are not taken by teenage American kids, but but illegal aliens, thereby shutting out Americans.
Consequently, these American kids are often unable to get that first job that would mean so much to them and provide them with important life lessons including a sense of self-worth and empowerment.
Unable to find legitimate employment, some kids, particularly in the poor neighborhoods, resort to committing crimes to get their hands on some money to take a girl on a date or make purchases.  This often puts these teenagers on a trajectory that does not end well for them or for their communities, or for America.
Illegal alien day laborers often displace construction workers, resulting in massive unemployment for American and lawful immigrant workers, boosting the profits of their employers who hire them “off the books” and pay them extremely low wages.
The open-borders/immigration anarchists are quick to invoke arguments about the need for compassion.  The reality is that there’s no compassion in the exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers nor is there compassion in the destruction of wages and jobs for Americans.
Now with the legalization of marijuana in many cities and states across the United States the issue not being raised in the media is that inasmuch as many companies test their employees for illegal drugs, it is likely that those who are encouraged to smoke marijuana will lose their jobs, perhaps leading to the globalists claiming that not only are lazy Americans not willing to take physically demanding jobs, and too dumb to take hi-tech jobs but are now too stoned to take any jobs.
The displacement of American workers is not limited to the economic bottom rung jobs.  America has been increasingly importing computer programmers and other hi-tech workers from India and other countries to displace Americans.
The Democratic Party used to act in the interests of American workers and, as a part of their efforts to protect the jobs and wages of Americans, opposed the importation of foreign workers.  Today, the Democratic Party no longer represents American workers and, in fact, has come to betray American workers and their families.  Today’s Democratic Party insists on raising the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour to achieve “wage equality.”  This works out to an annual wage of slightly more than $30,000.  The question that is never asked, particularly by the mainstream media is: “with whom would these workers become equal?”
It would be one thing if they insisted on a $15.00 minimum wage to help America’s working poor.  But to tout that wage as a means of achieving “wage equality” should give all Americans cause for pause.
As I noted in an article I once wrote about the veiled attack on the middle class,
The Wage Equality Deception, Alan Greenspan the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, invoked the notion of wage equality way back on April 30, 2009 when he testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship that was, at that time, chaired by Chuck Schumer.
The subject of the hearing was “Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It and How?”  Greenspan's prepared testimony included this assertion:
But there is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy. Between 2000 and 2007, for example, it accounted for more than a sixth of the increase in our total civilian labor force. The illegal part of the civilian labor force diminished last year as the economy slowed, though illegals still comprised an estimated 5% of our total civilian labor force. Unauthorized immigrants serve as a flexible component of our workforce, often a safety valve when demand is pressing and among the first to be discharged when the economy falters.
Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.
Greenspan must not have gotten the memo- when America’s poorest workers suffer wage suppression they are likely to become homeless and, indeed, across the United States, homelessness has increased dramatically.  This not only creates chaos in the lives of the homeless and their children, but imposes severe economic burdens on cities that have to cope with this disaster.
Greenspan went on to state the United States must accede to Bill Gates’ demand for more H-1B visas as Gates noted in his testimony at a previous hearing, that we are "driving away the world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most." 
Where I come from, “the world’s best and brightest” are AMERICANS!  This is what is commonly referred to as “American Exceptionalism.”
Greenspan supported his infuriating call for many more H-1B visas by the following “benefits” for America and, as you will see, the last sentence of his outrageous paragraph addresses the notion of reducing “wage inequality” by lowering wages of middle class, highly educated Americans whom Greenspan had the chutzpah to refer to as “the privileged elite”!
Consider this excerpt from his testimony:
First, skilled workers and their families form new households. They will, of necessity, move into vacant housing units, the current glut of which is depressing prices of American homes. And, of course, house price declines are a major factor in mortgage foreclosures and the plunge in value of the vast quantity of U.S. mortgage-backed securities that has contributed substantially to the disabling of our banking system. The second bonus would address the increasing concentration of income in this country. Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism. In the process, we have created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating such restrictions would reduce at least some of our income inequality.
Generally, the prospect of high-paying jobs incentivized American students to go on to college and acquire costly and time-consuming educations to be qualified to take those exciting and well-paying jobs.  If wages for high-tech professionals are slashed, those jobs will no longer be attractive to Americans.
Greenspan, Schumer and their cohorts are determined to create a $15.00 per hour “standard wage” to be paid to all workers irrespective of education or the nature of their jobs.  This is called Communism! 
Many have said that the Democrats want to import immigrants who will vote for their candidates.
What is often overlooked is that the downward economic spiral caused by the massive influx of cheap alien labor pushes ever more beleaguered Americans to vote for the Democrats who promise to help the hapless, financially strapped Americans for whom, no matter how hard they may strive, the “American Dream” has become an unattainable dream.

Immigration Truths the Democrats Deny

By Laura Ingraham

But the Democrats are determined to block Trump's efforts to fortify the border. You can see them recoil at any border wall talk. Here are the facts. The Democrats are willing to sell out the country, law and order be damned, in order to deny Trump a victory over the wall.

A few years ago, they were all for fortifying the border but not now. Of course, if we had a media that publicized actual facts on illegal immigration and other immigration issues, rather than obsessing 24/7 about Michael Cohen or focusing on a few really sympathetic people in Tijuana, we would have a lot more Democrats feeling the pressure on this issue from the voters.

Pelosi and Schumer Show Their Colors

By David Limbaugh

How can anyone believe that the Democrats support border security -- wall or no wall -- when they have repeatedly broken their promises to work with Republicans on it, when they demonize all opponents of illegal immigration and amnesty as racists, when they oppose all reasonable measures to guard the border, and when many of them actually advocate the elimination of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement?



Democrats can't stand the thought of protecting Americans

Democrats and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media tout themselves as concerned for those addicted to drugs and regularly support increased spending money for therapy.  But they refuse to fund building the wall and for border security on the Mexican border.
The wall would significantly stop the flow of illegal drugs through the Mexican border to the USA, which would reduce the supply of illegal drugs that cause addiction and deaths by overdose.  The Democrats and media support spending money to deal with the effects of drugs smuggled across the border but refuse to spend money to stop the smuggling.
There is no doubt that illegal drugs and most heroin come across the Mexican border.  And now we have fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is 80-100 times stronger than morphine.  According to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), "[c]landestinely-produced fentanyl is primarily manufactured in Mexico.

The Mexican cartels are producing fentanyl and also receive it from China to smuggle it to the USA.  It is very profitable for the cartels.

In 2017, more than 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, with at least 30,000 attributed to fentanyl.
President Trump has called for a border wall to stop illegal immigration and to reduce the flow of illegal drugs, such as heroin and fentanyl.  It is common sense and logical that building a wall and fully securing the southern border would reduce the flow of such drugs, reducing deaths and addiction.
Yet the Democrats refuse to fund the border wall and border security.
Senator Schumer and Speaker-Elect Pelosi agree to spend $1.5 billion for "border security" but not for a wall.  President Trump is asking for only $5 billion.  It is estimated that $27 to $40 billion is needed to fully fund the wall.
It is time to fully fund the border wall.  The Trump Shutdown should focus on the record number of Americans who die due to drugs smuggled from Mexico.  The focus should be on the Democrats and media that ignore the danger to Americans.  This debate should be coupled with the number of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens.
Democrats and their media will quibble about the exact number of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens.  But the point is that such crimes are avoidable if the border is secured.
President Trump must be supported to shut down the federal government to finally force funding the wall to  protect Americans.  The issue is protecting Americans.
Iran is the principal state sponsor and supporter of terrorism.  Iran has promised to destroy Israel.  Iran's Parliament chanted "death to America" while burning our flag.  The Dems and their media supported giving $150 billion to Iran but, they refuse to spend more than $1.5 billion to protect Americans, when they know that spending $27 to $40 billion would save thousands of Americans from death and addiction.
The bottom line is that the Dems and their media do not care about the security and safety of Americans.



What really lies behind the Left's support for 'open borders.'

December 6, 2018

Historically, Democrats supported strong borders because they knew American workers could never compete with illegal immigrants. Now, they regularly support “open borders.” So why the drastic change? Tucker Carlson, host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, explains.


“Senator Dianne Feinstein warned, at the time, they had to solve this crisis now—of immigrants coming in illegally and getting these jobs.”







1.) in the country legally;
2.)  have the means to sustain themselves economically;
3.) not destined to be burdens on society;
4.)  of economic and social benefit to society;
5.)  of good character and have no criminal records; and
6.)  contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
7.)  immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
8.)  foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
9.)  foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
10.)  foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
11.)  foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

12.)  those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.




The Democrat Party’s secret agenda for wider open borders, more welfare for invading illegals, more jobs and free anything they illegally vote for…. All to destroy the two-party system and build the GLOBALISTS’ DEMOCRAT PARTY FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED.


Demonstrably and irrefutably the Democrat Party  became the party whose principle objective is to thoroughly transform the nature of the American electorate by means of open borders and the mass, unchecked importation of illiterate third world peasants who will vote in overwhelming numbers for Democrats and their La Raza welfare state. FRONTPAGE MAG

No comments: