Saturday, December 19, 2015

TED CRUZ AND THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA, WHICH OPERATES OUT OF THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE AND IS U.S. TAX SUPPORTED - Ted Cruz has called for building a border fence and increasing the border security force, but he has very conspicuously failed to talk about deporting illegal aliens.

DOES TED CRUZ REALLY HAVE THE GUTS TO FACE DOWN THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA "The Race" AND HALT THE EVER EXPANDING MEX OCCUPATION AND WELFARE STATE IN OUR OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS???


Ted Cruz has called for building a border fence and increasing the border security force, but he has very conspicuously failed to talk about deporting illegal aliens.

Ted Cruz's very nuanced view on deportations of illegal aliens

Ted Cruz has called for building a border fence and increasing the border security force, but he has very conspicuously failed to talk about deporting illegal aliens.  Greta Van Susteren spent 20 minutes trying to pin him down on the subject, repeatedly asking Cruz whether he would deport illegal aliens if elected president.

When asked, Cruz said he would enforce existing laws.  When Greta asked him again if he would deport illegals, Cruz refused to say the word deport, curiously being evasive by asking Greta, "Well, what does the law say?"  The law of course says deport, but it is odd that Cruz does not want to say the words.
 
And now I think I know why.  Greta pinned Cruz down, so Cruz admitted that he would use existing Border Patrol and customs personnel to enforce the law.  Well, the Border Patrol operate only on and around the border.  They have no effect on illegals living inside most of America.  And the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service makes, or used to make, a few spot raids here and there but as a whole didn't seek out illegals in a systematic way for deportation.

What Ted Cruz seems to be saying is that the law would go back to the way it was under George W. Bush.  If law enforcement encounters illegals, or if Customs on one of its occasional meatpacking factory raids finds illegals, they will be deported.  But there will be no systematic effort like Operation Wetback to deport illegals here in large numbers.  Essentially, Cruz is hoping that with systems like E-Verify, illegals will self-deport.

This is a bit disappointing, because as I have documented elsewhere, the federal government cannot easily turn off the welfare spigot for illegals, so self-deportation will not be wholly effective.  Cruz's position, while superior to most other candidates, is still not as good as Donald Trump's, which does call for mass deportations.  It's just a little disappointing that Cruz, who is forthright on so many issues, is not more forthright on this one.

Thomas Lifson adds:

Unlike Ed, I am not in the least disappointed.  Cruz proved himself capable of dealing with a tough interrogator and sticking to language that provides no sound bites to his opponents.  And Ed missed one important point.  Cruz repeatedly stressed that securing the border is the predicate for everything else that follows.  Once people who are deported stay deported, the number of illegals resident here will decline.  And in addition to the methods Ed describes, routine law enforcement encounters, including traffic stops (at least in states that allow checks into immigration status) will lead to deportations.  People who have trouble with the law should be the priority for deportation anyway.

The scare tactic the left uses is the idea of jackbooted troopers roaming through barrios and demanding to see papers, herding poor Hispanics into detention centers and then bussing them off.  Cruz is studiously avoiding any language that could be used by propagandists to conjure up such pictures.  And in fact, such nightmarish raids would never happen.  So why feed the propaganda beast, even under cross-examination by a skilled litigator like Greta?

The expression “self-deporataion” was used against Romney to great effect.  So why should Cruz go there?  In the interest of “forthrightness”?  I thought Cruz was pitch-perfect in his consistent hewing to the line of “enforcing the law.”  That is a formulation that works for a broad majority of Americans and places the left on defensive, in favor of not enforcing the law, instead of self-righteously denouncing cruelty to poor Hispanics.
Here is the entire interview:
This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.
Ted Cruz has called for building a border fence and increasing the border security force, but he has very conspicuously failed to talk about deporting illegal aliens.  Greta Van Susteren spent 20 minutes trying to pin him down on the subject, repeatedly asking Cruz whether he would deport illegal aliens if elected president.
When asked, Cruz said he would enforce existing laws.  When Greta asked him again if he would deport illegals, Cruz refused to say the word deport, curiously being evasive by asking Greta, "Well, what does the law say?"  The law of course says deport, but it is odd that Cruz does not want to say the words.

And now I think I know why.  Greta pinned Cruz down, so Cruz admitted that he would use existing Border Patrol and customs personnel to enforce the law.  Well, the Border Patrol operate only on and around the border.  They have no effect on illegals living inside most of America.  And the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service makes, or used to make, a few spot raids here and there but as a whole didn't seek out illegals in a systematic way for deportation.

What Ted Cruz seems to be saying is that the law would go back to the way it was under George W. Bush.  If law enforcement encounters illegals, or if Customs on one of its occasional meatpacking factory raids finds illegals, they will be deported.  But there will be no systematic effort like Operation Wetback to deport illegals here in large numbers.  Essentially, Cruz is hoping that with systems like E-Verify, illegals will self-deport.

This is a bit disappointing, because as I have documented elsewhere, the federal government cannot easily turn off the welfare spigot for illegals, so self-deportation will not be wholly effective.  Cruz's position, while superior to most other candidates, is still not as good as Donald Trump's, which does call for mass deportations.  It's just a little disappointing that Cruz, who is forthright on so many issues, is not more forthright on this one.

Thomas Lifson adds:

Unlike Ed, I am not in the least disappointed.  Cruz proved himself capable of dealing with a tough interrogator and sticking to language that provides no sound bites to his opponents.  And Ed missed one important point.  Cruz repeatedly stressed that securing the border is the predicate for everything else that follows.  Once people who are deported stay deported, the number of illegals resident here will decline.  And in addition to the methods Ed describes, routine law enforcement encounters, including traffic stops (at least in states that allow checks into immigration status) will lead to deportations.  People who have trouble with the law should be the priority for deportation anyway.

The scare tactic the left uses is the idea of jackbooted troopers roaming through barrios and demanding to see papers, herding poor Hispanics into detention centers and then bussing them off.  Cruz is studiously avoiding any language that could be used by propagandists to conjure up such pictures.  And in fact, such nightmarish raids would never happen.  So why feed the propaganda beast, even under cross-examination by a skilled litigator like Greta?

The expression “self-deporataion” was used against Romney to great effect.  So why should Cruz go there?  In the interest of “forthrightness”?  I thought Cruz was pitch-perfect in his consistent hewing to the line of “enforcing the law.”  That is a formulation that works for a broad majority of Americans and places the left on defensive, in favor of not enforcing the law, instead of self-righteously denouncing cruelty to poor Hispanics.
Here is the entire interview:
This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.


Yes, We Can Deport 12 Million

 
Every year the 89,000 employees of the Internal Revenue Service attempt to enforce the tax laws for well over 200 million taxpayers. Obviously this is impossible and taxpayers could ignore the law with near impunity. Yet, they don’t. Somehow the IRS persuades the vast majority of the taxpayers to pay up.

If the IRS said that it would be inhumane to prosecute tax scofflaws because they have children that need to eat and that most tax scofflaws are good people who have run into hard times, what would happen? What would happen is that the population of tax scofflaws would explode. The tax scofflaws would become shrouded in moral legitimacy. Any attempt by the IRS to step up enforcement would be seen as brutal oppression against good people.
 
The IRS uses a carrot and stick approach. The tax withholding is rigged so that most people will get a refund. That encourages them to file their taxes as soon as possible so as to get the tax refund. People who aren’t toeing the line get threatening notices in the mail generated by a computer.

The IRS has plenty of helpers in the private sector. For example the “Tax Resolution Institute” says this:
“If you have received a Notice of Intent to Levy by the IRS, you only have 21 days to act. During the course of the 21 days, all of your financial accounts levied will be frozen. You will be unable to access your money. After three weeks, your bank and/or the other organizations in your financial network will be forced to send your money plus interest to the IRS to cover your tax debt. Once the IRS has your money, it is gone, and the chance of getting any of the funds returned is slim to none. If you contact us within this initial 21-day period, there is a good chance we can negotiate a better deal for you and protect your financial security.”
Obviously, this sort of talk is designed to terrify the taxpayer. The IRS computer sends a notice; the frightened taxpayer engages an advisor to help him deal with the faceless, threatening government agency. The taxpayer is whipped back into line. The IRS has tyrannical powers that are probably constitutional only because judges depend on the U.S. Treasury to pay their salaries.

To encourage the 12 million illegals to go back from where they came, some carrots and sticks would help. Remember, these people are living in a strange country with strange customs and a language they don’t understand very well. It can’t be that hard to intimidate them. If the IRS feels free to intimidate 200 million taxpayers by outrageous methods why should we be reluctant to use some of the same methods on the illegals?

The IRS gives rewards to people who inform on tax evaders. Actually getting the reward money may not be that easy. But it makes tax scofflaws nervous to think that their associates may turn them in for a reward. A program to give rewards to people who turn in employers of illegals would certainly make the employment of illegals less interesting. A lot of these employers are also engaging in income tax fraud, since there is no legal path for employing illegals. A particularly enticing tactic is to prosecute rich people who employ illegals. Of course, people will claim that they didn’t know that their maid was illegal. The trick here is to get the maid to testify against them by means of carrots and sticks. The same tactic can be used against corporations that accept fake documents and claim ignorance. The government does not have to prosecute everyone; just make public examples of a small number of cases. Many measures can be framed as taxes, for example, a $100 a day tax for each day a visitor overstays his visa. Taxes are easier to enforce than criminal sanctions.

A different sort of amnesty program for illegals would be to offer illegals who voluntarily go back to their home country some assistance. For example, time to put their affairs in order and perhaps some financial aid or a free plane ride. Those who accept and then return illegally would be arrested with bail set at $100,000. The detainees would be kept in a low-cost prison camp for at least 3 months, after which they would be offered amnesty if they exit the country. Otherwise they could wait a few more years in the camp for their case to come up. The camp would be humane but unpleasant. Anthropologists would be engaged to engineer a camp that would be particularly unpleasant for people with the cultural background of the illegals, but that would be defensible as humane to American sensibilities. The camp for Mexican illegals could be located near the Mexican border, giving the inmates an opportunity to escape to Mexico. It would be moderately difficult to escape. If an inmate were discovered missing, to add drama, a search team would be sent out with hound dogs and helicopters. The CIA could secretly encourage Mexican journalists to report the sad stories of the escapees who make it back to Mexico. Mexican journalists could also come to the camp to do interviews as well as film the guards with their helicopters and hound dogs. We want the U.S. to seem a dangerous place to prospective illegal immigrants.

The sanctuary city movement can be defanged by directing substantial revenue to cities that enforce immigration laws. For example, fines paid by illegals that are caught by local authorities can be paid to cities that do not welcome illegals.

The story that it is somehow difficult to deport 12 million people is a self-serving myth propagated by the political alliance that wants the illegals here. That alliance consists of Democratic politicians who see more Democrat voters and business interests that want cheap labor. There are also the employees of many non-profit operations devoted to aiding illegal immigrants. The losers are American workers, those at the bottom of the economic heap that are displaced and impoverished by 12 million competitors for their jobs. The losers are not nearly as well organized, as are the promoters of illegal immigration.

About 60% of the illegal immigrants are from Mexico with many more from Central America. Based on Gross National Income per capita, Mexico is an upper middle-income country, ranked slightly higher than China by the World Bank. It’s not as if Mexicans are forced to sneak into the U.S. by extreme poverty. There is no need for us to feel guilty about sending them back to Mexico. The idea that the illegals will suffer extreme hardship if they are sent back is simply a myth. People from these source countries have connections and families that make it perfectly possible for them to resettle in their former home. If they were resourceful enough to sneak into the U.S. and support themselves, surely they are resourceful enough to manage in their home countries where they know the language and customs.

There is nothing to keep us from giving temporary visas for guest workers in instances where that is justified. The idea that the illegals do jobs that Americans won’t is simply another exaggerated claim to justify illegal immigration. I have stayed at hotels in Kansas where all the hotel maids were English-speaking natives. Yes, some things will cost more without cheap illegal labor, but if the illegals are repatriated, more Americans will be able to find good jobs.
 
Every year the 89,000 employees of the Internal Revenue Service attempt to enforce the tax laws for well over 200 million taxpayers. Obviously this is impossible and taxpayers could ignore the law with near impunity. Yet, they don’t. Somehow the IRS persuades the vast majority of the taxpayers to pay up.

If the IRS said that it would be inhumane to prosecute tax scofflaws because they have children that need to eat and that most tax scofflaws are good people who have run into hard times, what would happen? What would happen is that the population of tax scofflaws would explode. The tax scofflaws would become shrouded in moral legitimacy. Any attempt by the IRS to step up enforcement would be seen as brutal oppression against good people.
The IRS uses a carrot and stick approach. The tax withholding is rigged so that most people will get a refund. That encourages them to file their taxes as soon as possible so as to get the tax refund. People who aren’t toeing the line get threatening notices in the mail generated by a computer.

The IRS has plenty of helpers in the private sector. For example the “Tax Resolution Institute” says this:
“If you have received a Notice of Intent to Levy by the IRS, you only have 21 days to act. During the course of the 21 days, all of your financial accounts levied will be frozen. You will be unable to access your money. After three weeks, your bank and/or the other organizations in your financial network will be forced to send your money plus interest to the IRS to cover your tax debt. Once the IRS has your money, it is gone, and the chance of getting any of the funds returned is slim to none. If you contact us within this initial 21-day period, there is a good chance we can negotiate a better deal for you and protect your financial security.”
Obviously, this sort of talk is designed to terrify the taxpayer. The IRS computer sends a notice; the frightened taxpayer engages an advisor to help him deal with the faceless, threatening government agency. The taxpayer is whipped back into line. The IRS has tyrannical powers that are probably constitutional only because judges depend on the U.S. Treasury to pay their salaries.
To encourage the 12 million illegals to go back from where they came, some carrots and sticks would help. Remember, these people are living in a strange country with strange customs and a language they don’t understand very well. It can’t be that hard to intimidate them. If the IRS feels free to intimidate 200 million taxpayers by outrageous methods why should we be reluctant to use some of the same methods on the illegals?
The IRS gives rewards to people who inform on tax evaders. Actually getting the reward money may not be that easy. But it makes tax scofflaws nervous to think that their associates may turn them in for a reward. A program to give rewards to people who turn in employers of illegals would certainly make the employment of illegals less interesting. A lot of these employers are also engaging in income tax fraud, since there is no legal path for employing illegals. A particularly enticing tactic is to prosecute rich people who employ illegals. Of course, people will claim that they didn’t know that their maid was illegal. The trick here is to get the maid to testify against them by means of carrots and sticks. The same tactic can be used against corporations that accept fake documents and claim ignorance. The government does not have to prosecute everyone; just make public examples of a small number of cases. Many measures can be framed as taxes, for example, a $100 a day tax for each day a visitor overstays his visa. Taxes are easier to enforce than criminal sanctions.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/_yes_we_can_deport_12_million.html#ixzz3ubeJjaA1
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


JUDICIAL WATCH
 
AMERICA'S OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS

 DHS Rarely Deports for Terrorism: 1,000th of 1 % of Cases

DECEMBER 11, 2015
EmailPrintText Size

It appears that Islamic extremists are infiltrating the United States in growing numbers yet government figures show that foreigners are hardly ever removed from the country on terrorism grounds. This is not surprising considering the Obama administration regularly shields criminal illegal immigrants with extensive rap sheets from deportation. Why not extend the privilege to terrorists?

In fiscal year 2015 only two of the 176,397 removal orders requested by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were based on terrorism concerns, according the government figures released this month by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a nonprofit university group dedicated to researching the U.S. government. That amounts to about one thousandth of one percent, TRAC points out, disclosing that in fiscal year 2014 DHS sought only three such orders based on terrorism concerns. During the first two months of fiscal year 2016, no removals have been sought by the administration on the bases of terrorism-related activities, TRAC states citing the government figures.

This unsettling information comes amid a recent wave of Somalis charged with terrorism in Minnesota, not to mention the savage attacks in San Bernardino, California by Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) sympathizers, one of them a Pakistani who entered the U.S. with a “fiancé visa.” It’s difficult to believe that the tally of noncitizens that could or should be removed by the feds for terrorism related activities isn’t much higher than the government figures show. Earlier this year Muhammad Abdulaziz , a Kuwaiti born man of Jordanian descent, shot and killed four Marines and a Navy sailor in Chattanooga, Tennessee after spending time in the Middle East. Remember that the Boston Marathon bombers were Chechen terrorists who could have been deported years before they attacked, especially the older brother (Tamerlan Tsarnaev) who had been arrested and/or convicted of domestic violence.

This week a 10th Minnesotan, yet another young Muslim Somali man, was charged with conspiracy to help ISIS. His name is Abdirizak Mohamed Warsame, he’s 20 years old and lives in Eagan, which is located south of St. Paul with a population of around 65,000. Warsame was among a group of 10 men from the Twin Cities’ large Somali community who planned to travel to Syria to fight with ISIS, according to the federal complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Warsame and his fellow Somali terrorist pals gathered at a local mosque to watch videos glorifying religious violence and Warsame paid $200 to have a third party get him an expedited passport to travel abroad to join fellow jihadists, the feds state in their complaint. Three of the accused have already pleaded guilty to terrorism charges, one is in Syria and five are scheduled to be tried next year.

In a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) affidavit included in the court documents, the agency reveals that Warsame and his buddies planned to travel to Syria by driving to Mexico and flying from there. Here’s another lovely tidbit from a local newspaper report; Minnesota is believed to have produced more would-be foreign fighters than any other state. There’s an upside, though. The area has a Muslim community that’s “exceptionally engaged with efforts to counter extremism.”

For those wondering why ISIS and ISIL are sometimes used interchangeably in the media and elsewhere, here’s an explanation straight out of Warsame’s complaint: “In an audio recording publicly released on June 29, 2014 ISIL announced a formal change of ISIL’s name to Islamic State. This terrorist organization will be referred to as ‘ISIL’ for the balance of this affidavit.” The U.S. government also uses the following aliases when referring to ISIS or ISIL, the complaint states: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ad-Dawla al-Islamiyya fi al-‘Iraq wa ash-Sham, Daesh, Dawla al Islamiya and Al-Furqan Establishment for Media Production.


JUDICIAL WATCH

Sign Up for Updates!

No comments: