Monday, November 30, 2015



U.S. to send specialized commando force to Iraq

Illegal youths crossing border jumps 269%, HHS warns of running out of beds

“James Simpson’s book, The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, notes that the Catholic Church has been a major component of the open borders movement,” said Kincaid. It is obvious that more immigrants in the U.S. means millions more from tax money to the Catholic Church.


Catholic Church Paid Millions in Dollars to Facilitate Immigrant Invasion in U.S.

 By Julio Severo, November 22, 2015
. . .
During his visit to the U.S., Pope Francis praised the Obama administration’s pro-immigration policies. And in response to the recent wave of Muslims fleeing the Middle East, Francis has appealed to Europe’s Catholics, calling on every parish, religious community, monastery and sanctuary to take in one refugee family. Certainly, this appeal will benefit Islamic invaders. But how much money, in partnerships with European governments, will the Catholic Church receive it in all of this?

About America, Kincaid said, “The Catholic Church in America would clearly prefer to bring immigrants into the U.S. from Latin America, where Catholicism is still strong, and have them join Catholic churches in the U.S. The Catholic Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate reports that 40 percent of all growth in registered parishioners in Catholic parishes between 2005 and 2010 was from Hispanic or Latino Catholics. But even with the massive immigration from Latin America, Catholic churches around the U.S. are still being closed down. A group called Future Church reports that hundreds of parishes have been merged or closed in New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland and many other urban and rural places. ‘Recently,’ the group reported, ‘the Archdiocese of New York merged or closed more than 70 parishes.’”

“James Simpson’s book, The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, notes that the Catholic Church has been a major component of the open borders movement,” said Kincaid. It is obvious that more immigrants in the U.S. means millions more from tax money to the Catholic Church.
. . .

Number of Unaccompanied Kids Crossing Border Has Doubled in Last Year

 By Joel Gehrke

 National Review Online, November 25, 2015
. . .
About 3,400 people cleared to receive the children “have later been determined to have criminal convictions including re-entry after deportation, DUI, burglary, distribution of narcotics, domestic violence, homicide, child molestation, and sexual assault,” Senate majority whip John Cornyn and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley wrote in a Monday letter to HHS and the Department of Homeland Security.
. . .

Sen. Sessions Wants to Defund Refugee Admissions Program

 By Warren Mass

 The New American, November 24, 2015
. . .
With the rise of the refugee crisis stemming from the turmoil in Iraq and Syria, and especially since the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris in which ISIS is suspected of playing an important role, Sessions and many others concerned about our nation’s weak or non-existent security screening of aliens have shared their concerns. In his speech, Sessions addressed the matter of security as follows:

The President persists in this plan even though his own officials, testifying before my Immigration Subcommittee, conceded there is no database in Syria with which to vet refugees…. The FBI director tells us there are now active ISIS investigations in all 50 U.S. states.

Our subcommittee has identified dozens of examples of foreign-born immigrants committing and attempting acts of terror on U.S. soil. Preventing and responding to these acts is an effort encompassing thousands of federal agents and attorneys and billions of dollars: in effect, we are voluntarily admitting individuals at risk for terrorism and then, on the back end, trying to stop them from carrying out their violent designs.

Sessions quoted a warning made by the former head of the Citizenship and Immigration Services union (which represents immigration caseworkers) more than a year ago: “It is also essential to warn the public about the threat that ISIS will exploit our loose and lax visa policies to gain entry to the United States.”

And Sessions is not alone in the Senate in having such reservations about the Obama refugee plan. He continued:

Senator [Ted] Cruz [R-Texas] and I sent the Administration a list of 72 individuals charged or convicted of terrorism in just the last year. We asked for the immigration histories of each individual. Stunningly, the Administration refused to respond.

It would be unthinkable for Congress to acquiesce to the President’s refugee funding request when he refuses to even publicly disclose the immigration history of these 72 terrorists, many of whom are involved with ISIS.

Cruz, a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, has had his own run-ins with the president concerning the administration's refugee plan. On November 16, his campaign released a video highlighting Cruz’s challenge to Obama for a debate on the administration’s proposed plan to admit tens of thousands of Syrian refugees. The description of the video on Cruz’s Senate website notes that FBI Director James Comey has acknowledged that these refugees cannot be properly vetted.
. . .

Importing Terrorism and Other American Values By Ann Coulter
Human Events Online, November 25, 2015
. . .
Contrary to Obama’s laughable reference to “the universal values” that “all of humanity” share, most of the world does not share our values, at all. They barely seem to share our DNA. As indignantly explained by the lawyer representing two Iraqis accused of child rape in Nebraska, America’s views about women and children “put us in the minority position in the world.”

Pederasty, child brides, honor killings, clitorectomies, stonings, wife beatings — when will America grow up and join the 21st century? (A lot sooner if Marco Rubio has his way!)

The New York Times boasts about how amazingly painstaking the “vetting” of Syrian refugees will be, but I notice the main point the paper keeps stressing is how long it will take. Twenty-four months!

“Waiting” is not “vetting.” What is 24 months to people who can hold a grudge for a thousand years?

As we found out from Michael Steinbach, assistant director of the FBI, in congressional testimony last month, there are no Syrian computer databases for our investigators to use in their famed “vetting” of refugees.
. . .

Syrian Leader: Impossible to Weed Terrorists Out of Migrants Coming to U.S.

By Selwyn Duke
The New American, November 23, 2015
. . .
It has now been confirmed: It is simply impossible to sufficiently vet the Muslim migrants entering our nation. Intelligence officials have said it. The Greek government has said it. And now a New York City Syrian community leader has this to say about Barack Obama’s claim that it is possible to distinguish between terrorists and other migrants: “Are you out of your mind?”

He is 57-year-old Aarafat “Ralph” Succar. Having arrived in the United States at age 10 and living in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, home of the Big Apple’s largest Syrian-immigrant enclave, Succar can straddle two very different worlds. One of them is a source of terrorists.

The other world is taking them in.

As the New York Post wrote late last week, “[Succar] told The Post on Wednesday that ISIS terrorists have ‘absolutely’ sneaked into America by posing as civil-war refugees — and joined sleeper cells just waiting to be activated. ‘I believe the terrorists from Syria have been coming into the United States, not only in the past few years, but way before that…. I think they’re already at work."

Despite this, the Obama administration is still at work trying to convince our nation’s governors otherwise. As the Associated Press just reported, "‘In short, the security vetting for this population — the most vulnerable of individuals — is extraordinarily thorough and comprehensive,’ Secretary of State John Kerry and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson write in letters sent to all state and territorial governors and to the mayor of Washington, D.C.” Furthermore, the administration claims migrants who arrive on our shores via “its resettlement program undergo a ‘rigorous security vetting process,’ particularly if they are fleeing from Syria,” writes the AP.
. . .
Succar echoes many who’ve warned that terrorist-spawning nations lack the databases necessary for vetting. As he put it, “Third World countries, particularly places like Syria, do not have the network of information the United States has,” reports the Post.

Yet Succar also mentions a factor that would render accurate databases, even if they existed, irrelevant: Bribes in Syria can get you official government documents stating you’re whoever you want to be. As the Post relates:

“You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,” he said.

“These are not forged documents. These are written out by a government employee who needs money, whose family has no food.”
. . .

The Alien Nation on Its Way

 By Greg Richards
American Thinker, November 26, 2015
. . .
That is the result, but we still have to articulate the conservative argument: why is it a bad idea to welcome a migration of Muslims into America? Conservative resistance to this is characterized by liberals as bigotry. We know it isn't that. So what is it?

The problem is that Islam is a culture alien to the culture of America. Ours is a culture that has been built up:

* over 3,500 years in terms of Judaism – i.e., the Ten Commandments;
* over 2,000 years in terms of Christianity;
* over 500 years in terms of Protestantism;
* over 300 years in terms of the Scottish Enlightenment – i.e., the primacy of the individual over the state;
* over 250 years in terms of America itself, of liberty and constitutional republicanism, of the rights of minorities in the face of the majority.

We are the heirs:

* of very specific conceptions of mankind and our unalienable rights;
* of very specific relationships between the individual and the state;
* of very specific Christian ideas of what we owe each other and how we treat each other – the golden rule, love thy neighbor as thyself;
* of very specific ideas of the separation of church and state.

The Enlightenment split into two streams of thought. In the Scottish Enlightenment, to which the Founding Fathers were heirs, the individual comes before the state. In the French Enlightenment, the state is the highest expression of humanity and comes before the individual. This is the wellspring of fascism and, really, communism.

So, while America is part of Western civilization, we are a unique part. We have a distinct heritage and a distinct culture.

Islam is alien to that culture. It is based on dominance, not equality, within society and aggression toward and death for nonbelievers. It is a philosophy of constant war, of jihad against the infidel. It is a political philosophy that guides every aspect of society and the state. There is no right of the individual and no separation of church and state. Because it is based on a divine and perfect revelation – the Koran – organizing a society upon the desires of its members – democracy – is blasphemy.
. . .


DHS Knew Illegal Aliens Falsely Claimed “Credible Fear” to Stay in U.S.

NOVEMBER 23, 2015

The Obama administration let hundreds of illegal immigrants stay in the U.S. even though federal authorities knew in advance that an open borders group coached them to falsely claim “credible fear” to get asylum, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The operation was part of a scam conducted by an immigrant rights organization called the National Immigrant Youth Alliance (NITA), which in recent years has coordinated demonstrations along the Southwest border in Texas and Arizona. In mid-2014 the group orchestrated a racket seeking to bring 250 illegal aliens into the U.S. through the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in San Diego, California. To assure the migrants were allowed to stay in the U.S., the group had them falsely claim that they had a “credible fear” of returning to their native country. Foreigners can claim asylum under five categories, based on fear of persecution over race, religion, nationality, political opinions or membership in a specific social group
In this particular case, the DHS agency charged with guarding the border—Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—actually admits knowing about the ploy in advance but allows the illegal aliens to stay anyways. Here’s an excerpt from the records obtained by JW through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): “BACKGROUND: The National Immigrant Youth Alliance (NITA) activists have coordinated previous demonstrations along the Southwest Border (Laredo, Texas and Nogales, Arizona). During this iteration, NIYA seek to bring 250 people to the Otay Mesa Port of Entry where they will request entry to the U.S. Previous CBP reporting of these events indicate the individuals applying for entry will have no entitlements to enter, pass through or remain in the United States and will summarily claim Credible Fear (CF).”
This is downright outrageous and has been going on for years, though we’ve never seen written evidence that the feds were complicit in a specific “credible fear” scam. In 2013 JW wrote about a San Diego news report that said droves of illegal aliens were flooding the Otay crossing claiming “credible fear” of Mexican drug cartels. In just one day 199 migrants had entered through Otay, the story revealed. The piece quoted a Border Patrol agent saying this: “They are being told if they come across, when they come up to the border and they say certain words, they will be allowed into the country.”
Credible fear asylum in the U.S. has become so popular that illegal aliens are hearing about it on Facebook and federal immigration authorities are overwhelmed with applications. In the last few years the number of foreigners, including large numbers from terrorist countries, asserting credible fear to gain asylum in this country has skyrocketed. During congressional testimony a few years ago, the heads of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and CBP confirmed that the percentage of individuals expressing a fear to remain in the U.S. has risen tremendously in the last few years.
The figures are incredibly alarming. In the last five years the number of “credible fear” asylum applications made at the border has increased sevenfold, from less than 5,000 to more than 36,000, a former Department of Justice (DOJ) and federal immigration official told Congress during a hearing earlier this year. Now a law professor at a prominent university, the official told lawmakers that statistics from USCIS Asylum Division show an approval rate of 92% for credible fear claims before the 2014 border surge. “Unfortunately the high approval rate for credible fear claims, and the resulting backlog in the immigration court system, have meant that in practice ‘credible fear’ has served to screen into the United States undocumented aliens wishing to make asylum claims,” the professor, Jan C. Ting told Congress. “That explains why many illegal border crossers don’t run from the U.S. Border Patrol, but instead seek them out to make asylum claims subject only to the low threshold of credible fear.”
Today, the backlog of credible fear cases pending in federal immigration courts is an astounding 450,000, according to a news report published this month. This could create huge national security risks because often asylum seekers are released from custody to await a court hearing. Just last week eight Syrian refugees turned themselves into U.S. immigration authorities along the U.S.-Mexico border. They are asking for asylum because they fear returning to their war-torn, terrorist-infested nation, but U.S. authorities have no reliable way to vet them.

Terrorism Border Threat Update

NOVEMBER 20, 2015
Importing Terrorists

 Obama’s Citizenship Push for Immigrants the Focus of New Judicial Watch Lawsuit

 Judicial Watch Uncovers Email Describing Hillary Clinton as “Often Confused”

Importing Terrorists

Judicial Watch and a small band of patriots in Washington have been highlighting the existential threat to our nation caused by the lack of border security and the Obama administration’s lawless approach to immigration.  We have also exposed the dangerous pro-Islamist approach to counter-terrorism by the Obama administration that, for instance, saw Obama administration officials working with Islamists and terrorist fronts in putting forth the lie that an Internet video, rather than Islamic terrorists, were responsible for the attack on our facilities in Benghazi.
After last week’s terror attacks in France, likely assisted by at least one ISIS terrorist who posed as a Syrian refugee, it would be reasonable to think that good sense might prevail on the Islamist terrorist threat.  Unfortunately for the safety of America, the Obama administration doubled down on its dangerous and dishonest radicalism.
As the bodies of Islamic terrorist victims were still being identified in Paris, and as France went into a state of war in response to the carnage, the Obama administration’s first substantive move on Islamic terrorism was to use the focus on the Paris attacks to release five al Qaeda terrorists from our secure military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Obama, on a crusade to close Gitmo, is releasing terrorists from the facility on a regular basis, and is reportedly planning to try to move the terrorists into the United States despite a law absolutely prohibiting him from doing so.  With Obama, amnesty isn’t limited to illegal aliens – it includes the kinds of terrorists who murdered dozens in Paris and, just today, in Mali.
The release of terrorists isn’t enough for this administration; it imports terrorists, as well.  Or, in the case of alleged refugees from what we are supposed to believe is Syria, Barack Obama would admit thousands from the center of the terrorist storm in the Middle East without any serious security background checks.  Rather than listen to the American people, who oppose the refugee proposal in large and bipartisan numbers, Obama’s plan to spend your tax money to bring 10,000 refugees from Syria to the United States is moving full speed ahead.
Judicial Watch has long been monitoring this issue and reported over a month ago on how our national security officials confess they can’t vet these refugees for terrorist ties:

During a recent congressional hearing a director with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which operates under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), confirmed that the U.S. has no method of vetting the new refugees because the Syrian government doesn’t have an intelligence database to run checks against. It’s actually embarrassing to watch the footage of the DHS director, Matthew Emrich, getting grilled by the senator who chairs the committee that conducted the hearing a few days ago. The session was held to address the fiscal and security implications of the Obama administration’s refugee resettlement program. 
Under questioning from Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, Emrich admits that there is no reliable way to assure that individuals coming from Syria are properly checked. The exchange lasts about seven minutes and Emrich sounds desperate when he says “we check everything that we are aware of” and that “we are in the process of overturning every stone.” The bottom line is that there is no way to verify the identity of Syrians so the defeated Homeland Security official proceeds to say that “in many countries of the world from which we have traditionally accepted refugees over the years the United States government did not have extensive data holdings.”
Obama’s own FBI Director reconfirmed that there is no reliable way to “certify” these refugees will not pose a threat to national security.
Obama’s reaction to efforts to either slow down or, most appropriately, stop this refugee madness has been venomous.  As is typical in Washington, the extremist Obama opposes modest (and likely ineffective efforts) to slow his refugee program down.  Republicans (and many Democrats) are now defending a bill that, some suggest, would do little to stop Obama from pursuing his plans to increase the flow of refugees from Syria here by a factor of 20 times!  I suppose a fake debate over a piece of legislation that would do nothing to address a serious problem is better than what typically goes on in Washington, D.C., as at least border security and the terrorist threat are under debate here.
Once again, Judicial Watch is in the middle of this debate – exposing the facts, exploding the corrupt lies, and educating Americans about this core national security issue.
We helped get the ball rolling on the refugee issue on Fox News this past Sunday.  At the end of that interview, I suggested citizens ask their local leaders whether they were going to allow Syrian refugees to settle in their towns.  We predicted that would be the issue over the next few weeks.  Well, the American people needed no prodding as governors from across the nation immediately revolted and said their states would not allow Obama to settle refugees from Syria, for now, in their states (to see if your state is on the list of objectors, click here for a map.)
In addition, as the refugee debated heated up in Congress this week, it was Judicial Watch’s Pulitzer Prize-deserving reporting on the border terror threat that helped drive the argument for the pausing of the refugee program.  Key House members pushing for tough border security cited our work, noting our April 2015 report that “ISIS was operating training bases in close proximity of the U.S. Southern border.”  Last year, our Corruption Chronicles first broke the news of Islamic terrorists on the border, including the fact they have already entered the United States through the Mexican border. Moreover, Homeland Security sources have told JW that four terrorists were apprehended by federal authorities and the Texas Department of Public Safety in McAllen and Pharr.  We alerted Americans that ISIS is operating in a Mexican border town just eight miles from El Paso, Texas.
Let me close with a point that you won’t hear anywhere else but may well know as a Judicial Watch supporter:  the Benghazi scandal and the ISIS disaster are connected.
We proved this beyond all doubt in documents we forced out of the Obama gang thanks a court order issued in a May 15, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit we filed against the Defense and State Departments.  The headlines from our May press release tell it best:

Administration knew three months before the November 2012 presidential election of ISIS plans to establish a caliphate in Iraq 
Administration knew of arms being shipped from Benghazi to Syria
That material provided the first official confirmation that the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria.  The documents also included an incredibly important August 2012 analysis, warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.  The August 2012 document, from the Defense Intelligence Agency, deserves careful review by anyone interested in the ISIS threat and how it could have been prevented.  As our release noted:

[T]he opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” The growing sectarian direction of the war was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS:
The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:
This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.
Some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”
This DIA report is getting new attention these days, most recently in The New York Times this week.  No wonder Obama gets so crazy when pushed on the Syria disaster, as this documents his alliance with jihadists in Libya led not only to the killing of four Americans in Benghazi but helped spark the ISIS war that threatens to ensnare the West in another world wide war.
Our litigation, our reporting, our investigation, and our educational efforts on these national security and related immigration/border issues won’t slow down.  Your Judicial Watch takes the Islamist terrorist threat seriously, especially when the politicians of both parties move on to other, petty topics.  You can track our work here, at  Please get the word out about our essential work to your elected leaders, family, friends, and colleagues.

Obama’s Citizenship Push for Immigrants the Focus of New Judicial Watch Lawsuit
Further proof that the Obama administration is a menace to the rule of law, our nation’s security, and our republican form of government can be found in the background behind just one new Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.  Judicial Watch attorneys filed the lawsuit last month to obtain records related to letters sent by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to current green card holders, urging individuals to become naturalized U.S. citizens prior to the 2016 election.
In April 2015, President Obama’s “White House Task Force on New Americans” issued a strategic action plan to help millions of green card holders become U.S. citizens.  Immigration Services is reportedly reallocating vast resources away from its “Electronic Immigration System,” a computerized system designed to facilitate national security and criminal background checks, to a campaign of letters to all nine million green card holders urging them to naturalize before the 2016 election.  The Obama administration’s push includes federal funding for leftist groups that advocate for illegal aliens and amnesty.
On May 14, 2015, Judicial Watch submitted a simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Immigration Services asking for:

  • Records related to letters sent by [Immigration Services] to current green card holders urging such individuals to become naturalized U.S. citizens prior to the 2016 election, including, but not limited to, memoranda, guidance, and/or instructions provided to [Immigration Services] staff regarding such letters and records of [Immigration Services] funds allocated to such efforts.
Judicial Watch sued after the agency, despite telling us it received our request, simply refused to respond to us in any way.  You probably are not surprised by the lawless cover-up given the issues (and likely corruption) at stake.
Obama’s effort to replace the American electorate with one more amenable to his despotic approach government means getting the millions of aliens to apply for and be granted citizenship as quickly as possible.  However, Immigration Services is obligated to conduct a criminal and security background investigation of an immigration applicant upon his or her filing for naturalization.
We can’t trust this to happen.
In 2012, Immigration Services abandoned required background checks, adopting, instead, “lean and lite” procedures in effort to keep up with the flood of amnesty applications spurred by President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive amnesty, an expansion of which has been ruled illegal by the federal courts.  Nevertheless, thousands of illegal aliens exempted from deportation under Obama’s unilateral amnesty moves are also potentially eligible for citizenship.  The Obama administration has already admitted into the United States a large number of people with documented ties to ISIS and other radical Islamic groups.  By the way, refugees (from Syria, Somalia, and other countries) can become citizens as soon as six years after receiving refugee or asylum status.  President Obama is dead set against serious background checks for refugees from these Islamist regions.
Despite the release of criminal aliens by the administration and other immigration non-enforcement, violations, and failures, the administration is reportedly expanding the naturalization effort.
The Obama “New American” initiative is reminiscent of Al Gore’s Clinton-era “Citizenship USA” program, which saw citizenship applications approved without the required FBI criminal background checks in the run-up to 1996 presidential election, in which President Clinton was reelected. As our friends at PJ Media report:

Naturalization plus mobilization is the explicit aim of the DHS “Task Force on New Americans.”
Multiple sources at DHS confirm that political appointees are prioritizing naturalization ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Empirical voting patterns among immigrants from minority communities demonstrate that these new voters will overwhelmingly vote for Democrat candidates.  If the empirical rates of support for Democrats continued among these newly naturalized minority voters, Democrats could enjoy an electoral net benefit of millions of new voters in the 2016 presidential election.
I hope you see what is happening.
The Obama administration is violating the federal transparency law to cover up it plans to use tax money to rush through citizenship for millions of legal and illegal aliens just in time for the 2016 elections.  Americans should wonder about whether this administration is importing voters and granting unilateral amnesty to help win elections at the expense of the safety and security of American citizens.

Appallingly Dishonest Pew Study on Immigration Trend from Mexico

 By Daniel Horowitz

 Conservative Review, November 22nd, 2015
. . .
Yet, Pew was dishonest enough to report this data as if it reflects the current reality, even though the current trend portends a political dynamic completely the opposite of that which they are trying to implant in the media cycle.

In reality, this Pew report proves every premise of the border hawks. The fact that some illegal aliens returned home following the recession demonstrates how the false choice between amnesty and mass deportation is a straw-man argument. Mere passive economic disincentives from a recession were strong enough to entice illegal immigrants to repatriate. Imagine the effects of cutting off welfare and education benefits, jobs, and unqualified birthright citizenship? Every time disincentives were effectively rolled out, a number of illegal immigrants voluntarily returned home.
And that is what has been so tragic about Obama’s amnesty programs from 2012-2015 and Rubio’s amnesty bill in 2013. The allure of mass amnesty completely reversed the tide and has spawned one of the sharpest increases in net migration from Mexico in years. Incentives and disincentives matter in terms of immigration policy and border control.
. . .

No comments: