Saturday, December 19, 2015

ON THE STATE LEVEL ALONE, CALIFORNIA UNDER LA RAZA-OCCUPATION, HANDS $30 BILLION PER YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS - MEXICANS ACCOUNT FOR NEARLY HALF THE MURDERS, AND JERRY BROWN IS DOWN AT THE BORDER TELLING THE INVADERS THAT "Californis is the second Mexico!"

When Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco, the most troubling aspect of her death was that it could have been prevented.  The alleged murderer had been convicted of seven felonies, and deported five times.  He ...


Sanctuary City Policy Finally Challenged In Court

When Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco, the most troubling aspect of her death was that it could have been prevented.  The alleged murderer had been convicted of seven felonies, and deported five times.  He should not have been in the city at all.  Yet even with the public outrage over this irresponsible action by law enforcement, the San Francisco board voted to keep its sanctuary policy, setting up similar scenarios in the future. 

San Francisco not only voted to keep its sanctuary policy, a violation of the 1996 Immigration Act, but specifically rejected participating in the Obama Administration’s new Priority Enforcement Program, which was designed to encourage cooperation from counties across the U.S. with ICE and other Federal law enforcement authorities. 
 
This reflects the unbelievable attitude created by Democrat-run cities that they can pick and choose those who reside in their cities as long as those new residents vote for them and keep the wealthy teacher and other public unions employed.  It is a clear violation of Federal law done for profit and political power. 

But there may be a silver lining to this cloud of corruption.  These actions are so outrageous they have created an opening for a lawsuit.  And on December 4, 2015 a lawsuit, filed by a Los Angeles Law Firm and Judicial Watch, may have far reaching implications for all American cities.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of San Francisco City and County resident Cynthia Cerletti.  Cerletti’s lawsuit is based on California’s common law taxpayer standing doctrine and Code of Civil Procedure § 526a, which allow any citizen to sue government officials to prevent the unlawful expenditure of taxpayer funds.

At issue is the March 13, 2015 policy directive issued by Ross Mirkarimi, who was at the time the Sheriff of San Francisco City and County.  In this policy directive he stated “there shall be limited contact and communication with ICE representatives absent a court-issued warrant, a signed court order, or other legal requirement authorizing ICE access.”  The directive went on to mandate “SFSD -- San Francisco Sheriff Dept. -- staff shall not provide the following information or access to ICE representatives…citizenship/immigration status of any inmate.” 

This is a clear violation of Federal law, which states: “a Federal, State or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity of official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization service [now ICE] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any citizen.” 

The issue brought up in the Cerletti lawsuit is that the Sheriff was using taxpayer funds to violate Federal law.  And in California it is a violation of state statute to put taxpayer funds to illegal uses. 

The funds the City and County of San Francisco receive are substantial.  In Fiscal Year 2014-2015 the SFSD was appropriated about $190 million from the City and County general fund to finance its operations.  This will increase to $208 million in FY 2016-2017. 

What the Plaintiff Cynthia Cerletti is seeking is a Judgment in Superior Court that the Sheriff’s directive violates US Code and is illegal.  The lawsuit also asks for a permanent injunction prohibiting the Sheriff’s Dept. of San Francisco City and County from expending any taxpayer funds that implement, enforce, maintain, defend or other carry out the provisions of the March 13, 2015 directive.

However, Sheriff Mirkarami lost the election held last month to challenger former Chief Deputy Vicki Hennessy.  However, in a strange twist of events, the same day, November 3, that Sheriff Mirkarami lost his bid for re-election, primarily because of his stance on supporting San Francisco’s sanctuary status, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to preserve the city’s sanctuary status, clearly defying the will of the people. 

The Board of Supervisors also specifically rejected participating in Obama’s new Priority Enforcement Program, a program directed to rein in some of the sanctuary city’s abuses.  The PEP program will rely on fingerprint-based biometric data submitted during bookings by state and local law enforcement agencies.  This program was established on November 20, 2014 by an Executive Action issued by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. 
However, the Board of Supervisors rejected the program and refuses to cooperate with Federal authorities.  They will not submit fingerprint data on those they arrest.  This hinders ICE’s ability to arrest, detain, and deport individuals like Steinle’s alleged murderer. 

And on the same day, Democrats in the U.S. Senate filibustered a measure to crack down on sanctuary cities by stripping funding from communities such as San Francisco that refuse to cooperate with Federal immigration law.  This proves that illegal immigration is not created by businesses who want cheap labor but by Democrats who want residents in their cities and states.

Because the Judicial Watch lawsuit specifically cited Sheriff Mirkarami’s policy directive and he lost the election, there may be some issue of relevance in the lawsuit.  The new Sheriff, Vicki Hennessy has rescinded some of the directive.  But since the Board of Supervisors reaffirmed their commitment to keeping San Francisco as a sanctuary city there will be new opportunities for lawsuits.

The significance of the lawsuit submitted by Judicial Watch is that it provides a legal way to finally challenge scofflaw agencies that use taxpayer dollars to violate Federal and state law.  It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS, which may eventually review the case, will allow local law enforcement agencies in sanctuary cities throughout the nation to continue to hinder federal law and ICE’s efforts to keep Americans safe from illegal immigrants who commit felonies.  In short, the issue to be confronted is whether or not federal law means anything to communities like San Francisco.  This is a crucially important first battle to make officials accountable to Federal law. 
When Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco, the most troubling aspect of her death was that it could have been prevented.  The alleged murderer had been convicted of seven felonies, and deported five times.  He should not have been in the city at all.  Yet even with the public outrage over this irresponsible action by law enforcement, the San Francisco board voted to keep its sanctuary policy, setting up similar scenarios in the future. 

San Francisco not only voted to keep its sanctuary policy, a violation of the 1996 Immigration Act, but specifically rejected participating in the Obama Administration’s new Priority Enforcement Program, which was designed to encourage cooperation from counties across the U.S. with ICE and other Federal law enforcement authorities. 
This reflects the unbelievable attitude created by Democrat-run cities that they can pick and choose those who reside in their cities as long as those new residents vote for them and keep the wealthy teacher and other public unions employed.  It is a clear violation of Federal law done for profit and political power. 

But there may be a silver lining to this cloud of corruption.  These actions are so outrageous they have created an opening for a lawsuit.  And on December 4, 2015 a lawsuit, filed by a Los Angeles Law Firm and Judicial Watch, may have far reaching implications for all American cities.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of San Francisco City and County resident Cynthia Cerletti.  Cerletti’s lawsuit is based on California’s common law taxpayer standing doctrine and Code of Civil Procedure § 526a, which allow any citizen to sue government officials to prevent the unlawful expenditure of taxpayer funds.

At issue is the March 13, 2015 policy directive issued by Ross Mirkarimi, who was at the time the Sheriff of San Francisco City and County.  In this policy directive he stated “there shall be limited contact and communication with ICE representatives absent a court-issued warrant, a signed court order, or other legal requirement authorizing ICE access.”  The directive went on to mandate “SFSD -- San Francisco Sheriff Dept. -- staff shall not provide the following information or access to ICE representatives…citizenship/immigration status of any inmate.” 

This is a clear violation of Federal law, which states: “a Federal, State or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity of official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization service [now ICE] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any citizen.” 

The issue brought up in the Cerletti lawsuit is that the Sheriff was using taxpayer funds to violate Federal law.  And in California it is a violation of state statute to put taxpayer funds to illegal uses. 

The funds the City and County of San Francisco receive are substantial.  In Fiscal Year 2014-2015 the SFSD was appropriated about $190 million from the City and County general fund to finance its operations.  This will increase to $208 million in FY 2016-2017. 

What the Plaintiff Cynthia Cerletti is seeking is a Judgment in Superior Court that the Sheriff’s directive violates US Code and is illegal.  The lawsuit also asks for a permanent injunction prohibiting the Sheriff’s Dept. of San Francisco City and County from expending any taxpayer funds that implement, enforce, maintain, defend or other carry out the provisions of the March 13, 2015 directive.

However, Sheriff Mirkarami lost the election held last month to challenger former Chief Deputy Vicki Hennessy.  However, in a strange twist of events, the same day, November 3, that Sheriff Mirkarami lost his bid for re-election, primarily because of his stance on supporting San Francisco’s sanctuary status, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to preserve the city’s sanctuary status, clearly defying the will of the people. 

The Board of Supervisors also specifically rejected participating in Obama’s new Priority Enforcement Program, a program directed to rein in some of the sanctuary city’s abuses.  The PEP program will rely on fingerprint-based biometric data submitted during bookings by state and local law enforcement agencies.  This program was established on November 20, 2014 by an Executive Action issued by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. 
However, the Board of Supervisors rejected the program and refuses to cooperate with Federal authorities.  They will not submit fingerprint data on those they arrest.  This hinders ICE’s ability to arrest, detain, and deport individuals like Steinle’s alleged murderer. 

And on the same day, Democrats in the U.S. Senate filibustered a measure to crack down on sanctuary cities by stripping funding from communities such as San Francisco that refuse to cooperate with Federal immigration law.  This proves that illegal immigration is not created by businesses who want cheap labor but by Democrats who want residents in their cities and states.

Because the Judicial Watch lawsuit specifically cited Sheriff Mirkarami’s policy directive and he lost the election, there may be some issue of relevance in the lawsuit.  The new Sheriff, Vicki Hennessy has rescinded some of the directive.  But since the Board of Supervisors reaffirmed their commitment to keeping San Francisco as a sanctuary city there will be new opportunities for lawsuits.

The significance of the lawsuit submitted by Judicial Watch is that it provides a legal way to finally challenge scofflaw agencies that use taxpayer dollars to violate Federal and state law.  It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS, which may eventually review the case, will allow local law enforcement agencies in sanctuary cities throughout the nation to continue to hinder federal law and ICE’s efforts to keep Americans safe from illegal immigrants who commit felonies.  In short, the issue to be confronted is whether or not federal law means anything to communities like San Francisco.  This is a crucially important first battle to make officials accountable to Federal law. 


Read more:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/sanctuary_city_policy_finally_challenged_in_court.html#ixzz3unXH4o7A
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Judicial Watch Files Taxpayer Lawsuit against San Francisco Sanctuary Ordinance Expansion


CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS (LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEM) WAS CITY ATTORNEY IN S.F. AND CREATED THE SANCTUARY CITY WHERE ILLEGALS ARE INVITED TO LOOT WELFARE, STEAL JOBS AND COMMIT MURDERS!

HARRIS HAS PUBLICALLY STATED THAT NEARLY HALF THE MURDERS IN CALIFORNIA, NOW A COLONY OF MEXICO, ARE COMMITTED BY MEXICAN GANGS!

KAMALA HARRIS IS RUNNING FOR U.S. SENATE SEAT HELD BY BARABARA "BRIBES" BOXER.


THE KAMALA HARRIS POLICY IN ACTION: MURDER OF LEGALS!

"San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance gained national attention on July 1, 2015, when Kathryn Steinle was gunned down at one the city’s most popular tourist spots, allegedly by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien who had been released from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department despite a request from ICE that he be detained for possible deportation.  The Sheriff’s Department not only ignored ICE’s detainer request, but also failed to notify ICE when it released Lopez-Sanchez on April 15, 2015, little more than a month after Mirkarimi issued the new policy directive."

“Sheriff Mirkarimi’s expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy is dangerous and violates federal law.  It needs to end,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “We encourage Sheriff-Elect Hennessy to repeal Sheriff Mirkarimi’s policy directive in its entirety.”

 

Judicial Watch Files Taxpayer Lawsuit against San Francisco Sanctuary Ordinance Expansion

DECEMBER 09, 2015

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a taxpayer lawsuit in San Francisco County, California Superior Court to end a March 2015 expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance that prohibits San Francisco Sheriff’s Department personnel from exchanging information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the citizenship or immigration status of inmates in the Sheriff Department’s custody.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of San Francisco taxpayer Cynthia Cerletti (Cynthia Cerletti v. Ross Mirkarimi (No. CGC -15-54250)).

On March 13, 2015, current San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi put in place a new policy directive, entitled “Immigration & Customs Enforcement Procedures (ICE) Contact and Communications,” mandating that “absent a court issued warrant, a signed court order, or other legal requirement authorizing ICE access . . . SFSD staff shall not provide the following information or access to ICE representatives:  Citizenship/immigration status of any inmate.”

Mirkarimi’s new policy directive, which goes even further than San Francisco’s infamous sanctuary ordinance, runs directly contrary to federal law, which states, “[A] Federal, State, or local government entity or officials may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from [ICE] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”  (8 U.S.C. § 1373).

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department receives over $200 million in taxpayer support annually to fund its operations, a portion of which is being spent to carry out the new policy directive and train personnel on its requirements.  As California grants its taxpayers the right to sue government officials to prevent expenditures of taxpayer funds on unlawful activities, Judicial Watch filed suit against Mirkarimi, in his official capacity, on behalf of Cerletti.  The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department from expending any taxpayer funds on the policy directive and a judgment declaring the policy directive to be illegal.

Sheriff-Elect Vicki Hennessy, who defeated Mirkarimi in a November 3, 2015 election, has promised changes to Mirkarimi’s policy directive.  Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeks to ensure that Hennessy makes good on her promise when she takes office.

San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance gained national attention on July 1, 2015, when Kathryn Steinle was gunned down at one the city’s most popular tourist spots, allegedly by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien who had been released from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department despite a request from ICE that he be detained for possible deportation.  The Sheriff’s Department not only ignored ICE’s detainer request, but also failed to notify ICE when it released Lopez-Sanchez on April 15, 2015, little more than a month after Mirkarimi issued the new policy directive.

“Sheriff Mirkarimi’s expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy is dangerous and violates federal law.  It needs to end,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “We encourage Sheriff-Elect Hennessy to repeal Sheriff Mirkarimi’s policy directive in its entirety.”

As the result of earlier Judicial Watch litigation, the San Francisco Police Department was required in 2011 to comply with a California law requiring federal officials be notified whenever an alien is arrested on certain drug offenses.  Judicial Watch is separately investigating whether the release of Steinle’s alleged killer violated this court order.

Robert Patrick Sticht, a Los Angeles-based attorney, is serving as lead counsel in the Cerletti litigation.

PAUL RYAN LOVES OPEN AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS - HE IS AN ADVOCATE FOR OBAMA'S AMNESTY HOAX TO LEGALIZE MEXICO'S LOOTING AND KEEP WAGES FOR LEGALS DEPRESSED

PAUL RYAN IS AN ADVOCATE FOR OBAMA'S AMNESTY HOAX TO LEGALIZE MEXICO'S LOOTING.

IT'S NOT THAT RYAN CARES ABOUT THE INVADING MEXICANS, OR THE AMERICANS THEY MURDER, LOOT AND STEAL JOBS AND BILLIONS IN WELFARE FROM, IT'S SIMPLY THAT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED KEEPS RYAN'S PAYMASTERS HAPPY AND GENEROUS.



Paul Ryan’s omnibus bill is a dream come true for Barack Obama.  And the left.  And, apparently, for most of those presumably on the right (who really are on the left).  The bill funds DACA, it does nothing to secure the border, ...

Paul Ryan loves open borders (except around his property)

Paul Ryan’s omnibus bill is a dream come true for Barack Obama.  And the left.  And, apparently, for most of those presumably on the right (who really are on the left).  The bill funds DACA, it does nothing to secure the border, it does not block Syrian refugees, and on and on and on.  In these, and other ways, it is a national security (and national identity) disaster.
But oh, the irony, or should I say hypocrisy, when you see the border Mr. Ryan has built around his home to protect his family and property – a border replete with private border patrol.

Breitbart reports:
While Paul Ryan’s omnibus spending bill does not provide funding for the mandatory completion of a 700-mile double-layer border fence that Congress promised the American people nearly a decade ago when it passed the 2006 Secure Fence Act, Paul Ryan has constructed a fence around his property.
As Breitbart News’s photographic documentation reveals, Ryan’s home is surrounded by a tall border fence reinforced by equally high bushes— ensuring both privacy and security. Moreover, the fence is manned by an on-duty agent who guards his property’s perimeter. Upon even the slightest appearance of any unusual activity— such as a 5’2″ female taking a photograph of the fence— Ryan’s border agent will deploy into action to ensure the perimeter’s sovereignty. (snip)
Paul Ryan grants himself the very thing he withholds from the nation.  He has no business being speaker of the House or an elected official on any level.  Any politician who will not enforce maximum security for our country has abdicated his oath of office.  It’s that simple.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has previously highlighted the hypocrisy of immigration expansionists who surround their homes with border fences and monitor who comes on their property but do not apparently believe the American people deserve the same protections. Sessions pointed specifically to open borders advocate Mark Zuckerberg who, according to reports, spent $30 million buying the surrounding four homes around his own property in order to get “a little more privacy.”
Sessions said, “Well, the ‘masters of the universe’ are very fond of open borders as long as these open borders don’t extend to their gated compounds and fenced-off estates.”
Indeed.  It seems Washington elites fancy themselves as being at greater risk because of their job titles.  But it’s been ordinary Americans who’ve been killed by jihadists.  And it’s been ordinary Americans who’ve been burglarized, raped, and murdered by illegal aliens.
God bless Jeff Sessions, who has been a tireless advocate for border security and a voice of sanity on the issue of immigration.
On previous occasions, Ryan has repeatedly suggested that the American people are not entitled to discriminate against who enters their country on a visa. When Sean Hannity asked Paul Ryan about whether or not he would support curbs to Muslim immigration, Paul Ryan declared, “That’s not who we are.”
Why are we “not entitled”?  What an outrageous thing to say!  As for his comment “that’s not who we are,” it was a line straight out of Obama’s playbook.  It’s one of those phrases that sounds profound to idiots but means nothing.  But just for the sake of argument, let’s dignify it with a response: it’s not who we are because, apparently, we’re idiots.
However, Ryan’s fence ensures that no refugees will be able to enter his property without his permission— even as U.S. communities are not able to make any such restrictions. (snip)
“America is more than just a country,” Ryan said. “It’s more than Chicago, or Wisconsin. It’s more than our borders. America is an idea. It’s a very precious idea.”
Another phrase that seems plucked from Obama’s list of vapid one-liners.  America is “more than our borders.”  What the heck does that even mean, and who’s claiming all we are is our borders?  But, for goodness's sake, without secure borders, we have no country.
And can we please stop with the “idea” crap?  I get it.  We all know what that means.  And it’s true.  America is an idea.  But right now, we haven’t the luxury of thinking or speaking in this way.  Perhaps at some time in the future (assuming there’s a miracle and this nation is saved), we can talk about the idea of America.  For now, how about we get back to basics and secure the border so we have a country?  Yes, a country.
Ryan disparaged Americans who opposed large-scale immigration, characterizing that attitude as ignorant, declaring that throughout American history, “Each wave [of immigration] is met with some ignorance, is met with some resistance.”
This brand new shiny speaker of the House is equating past waves of immigration with immigration from Islamic countries.  If he can’t tell the differences between the two, then, once again, he has no business being in a position of power of any kind.  And how dare he call us ignorant?  We are the ones who have made it a point to learn and educate ourselves about the enemy . If we are resisting, it is for good reason.  Does Ryan know anything about the teachings of the Quran?  I thought not.  Then he, like so many others, should learn and stop flapping his lips with nonsense plucked out of thin air.
Ryan said, “We want to have a system where people can come here and work– go back and forth if they want to… so that we have an open door to the people who want to come and contribute to our country, who want to come and make a difference in their families’ lives, and our economy.”
No!  Not an “open door”!  Right now we need to slam the door and take stock.
The madness spins ’round and ’round.  As for Paul Ryan, he needed to grow a pair.  Instead he grew a beard.  What a pathetic little man.
Paul Ryan’s omnibus bill is a dream come true for Barack Obama.  And the left.  And, apparently, for most of those presumably on the right (who really are on the left).  The bill funds DACA, it does nothing to secure the border, it does not block Syrian refugees, and on and on and on.  In these, and other ways, it is a national security (and national identity) disaster.
But oh, the irony, or should I say hypocrisy, when you see the border Mr. Ryan has built around his home to protect his family and property – a border replete with private border patrol.
Breitbart reports:
While Paul Ryan’s omnibus spending bill does not provide funding for the mandatory completion of a 700-mile double-layer border fence that Congress promised the American people nearly a decade ago when it passed the 2006 Secure Fence Act, Paul Ryan has constructed a fence around his property.
As Breitbart News’s photographic documentation reveals, Ryan’s home is surrounded by a tall border fence reinforced by equally high bushes— ensuring both privacy and security. Moreover, the fence is manned by an on-duty agent who guards his property’s perimeter. Upon even the slightest appearance of any unusual activity— such as a 5’2″ female taking a photograph of the fence— Ryan’s border agent will deploy into action to ensure the perimeter’s sovereignty. (snip)
Paul Ryan grants himself the very thing he withholds from the nation.  He has no business being speaker of the House or an elected official on any level.  Any politician who will not enforce maximum security for our country has abdicated his oath of office.  It’s that simple.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has previously highlighted the hypocrisy of immigration expansionists who surround their homes with border fences and monitor who comes on their property but do not apparently believe the American people deserve the same protections. Sessions pointed specifically to open borders advocate Mark Zuckerberg who, according to reports, spent $30 million buying the surrounding four homes around his own property in order to get “a little more privacy.”
Sessions said, “Well, the ‘masters of the universe’ are very fond of open borders as long as these open borders don’t extend to their gated compounds and fenced-off estates.”
Indeed.  It seems Washington elites fancy themselves as being at greater risk because of their job titles.  But it’s been ordinary Americans who’ve been killed by jihadists.  And it’s been ordinary Americans who’ve been burglarized, raped, and murdered by illegal aliens.
God bless Jeff Sessions, who has been a tireless advocate for border security and a voice of sanity on the issue of immigration.
On previous occasions, Ryan has repeatedly suggested that the American people are not entitled to discriminate against who enters their country on a visa. When Sean Hannity asked Paul Ryan about whether or not he would support curbs to Muslim immigration, Paul Ryan declared, “That’s not who we are.”
Why are we “not entitled”?  What an outrageous thing to say!  As for his comment “that’s not who we are,” it was a line straight out of Obama’s playbook.  It’s one of those phrases that sounds profound to idiots but means nothing.  But just for the sake of argument, let’s dignify it with a response: it’s not who we are because, apparently, we’re idiots.
However, Ryan’s fence ensures that no refugees will be able to enter his property without his permission— even as U.S. communities are not able to make any such restrictions. (snip)
“America is more than just a country,” Ryan said. “It’s more than Chicago, or Wisconsin. It’s more than our borders. America is an idea. It’s a very precious idea.”
Another phrase that seems plucked from Obama’s list of vapid one-liners.  America is “more than our borders.”  What the heck does that even mean, and who’s claiming all we are is our borders?  But, for goodness's sake, without secure borders, we have no country.
And can we please stop with the “idea” crap?  I get it.  We all know what that means.  And it’s true.  America is an idea.  But right now, we haven’t the luxury of thinking or speaking in this way.  Perhaps at some time in the future (assuming there’s a miracle and this nation is saved), we can talk about the idea of America.  For now, how about we get back to basics and secure the border so we have a country?  Yes, a country.
Ryan disparaged Americans who opposed large-scale immigration, characterizing that attitude as ignorant, declaring that throughout American history, “Each wave [of immigration] is met with some ignorance, is met with some resistance.”
This brand new shiny speaker of the House is equating past waves of immigration with immigration from Islamic countries.  If he can’t tell the differences between the two, then, once again, he has no business being in a position of power of any kind.  And how dare he call us ignorant?  We are the ones who have made it a point to learn and educate ourselves about the enemy . If we are resisting, it is for good reason.  Does Ryan know anything about the teachings of the Quran?  I thought not.  Then he, like so many others, should learn and stop flapping his lips with nonsense plucked out of thin air.
Ryan said, “We want to have a system where people can come here and work– go back and forth if they want to… so that we have an open door to the people who want to come and contribute to our country, who want to come and make a difference in their families’ lives, and our economy.”
No!  Not an “open door”!  Right now we need to slam the door and take stock.
The madness spins ’round and ’round.  As for Paul Ryan, he needed to grow a pair.  Instead he grew a beard.  What a pathetic little man.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/12/paul_ryan_loves_open_borders_except_around_his_property.html#ixzz3unV5GGft
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

A Peek at the House Funding Bill
What it does and doesn’t do


WASHINGTON, DC (December 18, 2015) — The Center for Immigration Studies has listed some of the immigration enforcement-related highlights included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, H.R.2029. The 2,000-plus pages making up the $1.1 trillion spending bill funds President Obama's entire immigration agenda, without any policy riders.

Dan Cadman, a research fellow with the Center, provides a lengthy list of highlights. A few not receiving media attention are:
 
  • Funds various law-enforcement grant programs (Byrne, COPS, SCAAP), without any requirement that the recipients cooperate with ICE – i.e., are not sanctuary cities.
  • Provides $385 million to the Legal Services Corporation without specifying that such funds may not be used in support of aliens in removal proceedings, contrary to Section 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  • Legitimizes the "Priority Enforcement Program", created as a part of the administration's constitutionally dubious "executive action" memos.
To the objection that Congress can't micromanage everything in a sprawling spending bill, Cadman counters that the bill urges federal agency to buy "Energy Star" light bulbs; "when they want, congressional legislators are quite happy to micromanage."

View the entire text at: http://cis.org/cadman/quick-peek-house-funding-bill


Contact: Marguerite Telford
202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org

Conservatives ‘Shocked’ by Change to Immigration Law Tucked Inside Spending Bill

BLOG: THE ENDLESS INVASION BY INVITATION OF AMERICA'S CORRUPT GOVERNMENT.


'It came out of nowhere, completely out of nowhere,' Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said of the measure quadrupling the number of low-skilled guest workers allowed in to the U.S. (Photo: Michael Reynolds/EPA/Newscom


House conservatives are up in arms over a provision in the omnibus spending bill that could allow more than a quarter-million temporary guest workers into the U.S.  

As a significant change to immigration law, the measure stunned conservative lawmakers, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told The Daily Signal.

“It came out of nowhere, completely out of nowhere,” Jordan, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said, “[and] everyone was shocked there was a change and no one had talked about it.”
The provision is the most recent aspect of the $1.1-trillion package to rile conservatives. Congress hopes to pass the omnibus by Friday, before heading home for the holidays.

Tucked into the 2,009-page spending bill, the measure would increase the current federal caps on H-2B visas for low-skilled foreign workers seeking blue-collar jobs in the U.S.

The provision would quadruple the number of foreign workers allowed annually from 66,000 to 264,000.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in courting conservatives just weeks ago in the speaker race, promised he wouldn’t push immigration changes while a Democrat is in the White House.
But Jordan described the move as “a significant change, something you shouldn’t throw in at the last minute.” He added:
I don’t know how much Paul knew about it, but I think it’s the wrong direction, the wrong policy decision, particularly when you don’t have extensive debate or discussion.
A Ryan aide downplayed the speaker’s role in the measure and qualified his past promise.
“Ryan didn’t say the House would not touch programs related to visas, rather that it would not pass comprehensive immigration reform,” the aide told The Daily Signal. “This is not that, and not even close.”

The House Judiciary Committee, not Ryan, crafted the change in line with his promise “to allow the committees [to] take the lead in legislating,” the aide said. It was approved by the House Appropriations Committee on July 21 by a vote of 32-17 as part of a homeland security spending bill (H.R. 3128; page 72).

Asked about it Wednesday, Ryan told reporters:
This passed the House Appropriations Committee in July, with the House Judiciary Committee working with that committee. So if you have any questions, I’d refer you to those guys. The whole point of this, I want committees driving the process. I want committees writing the legislation, and that’s what happened here.
Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., said that claim is “a little slippery.”

Although the guest worker provision is “not comprehensive,” Brat told The Daily Signal, the measure didn’t follow regular order; it came “before committee, maybe, but never before the House for a vote.”

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., said he found out about the provision from media reports. He said the episode hearkens back to experiences under the previous speaker, John Boehner, R-Ohio.

“We were not told by our leadership that it [the guest worker program] was in the bill,” Huelskamp said. “That’s very disappointing and something that we had come to expect under former Speaker Boehner: Things would just appear.”

Brat, an economics professor before being elected to Congress last year, questioned the logic behind what he says is “one of the most abused visa programs there is.”

“Why is it that we go and try to recruit in bulk folks who compete against Americans, [against] our inner-city kids, where the unemployment rate is above 30 percent already?” he asked.

The H-2B guest worker program has come under increased scrutiny in recent months. In December, the media outlet Buzzfeed reported that its investigation found that “businesses go to extraordinary lengths to deny jobs to U.S. workers” and use the program “so they can hire foreigners instead.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., lambasted the legislation Wednesday as proof that the Republican Party’s elites “are openly hostile” and represented “a further disenfranchisement of the American voter.”
Even before the proposed expansion, the H-2B program had galvanized opposition, making allies of some conservatives and labor unions.

An umbrella organization of national unions, the AFL-CIO, called the program “deeply harmful to both the workers, working under the visas, and to U.S. workers.”

NumbersUSA, an organization that opposes increases in immigration, criticized H-2B visas as preying on “vulnerable families during a time when jobs are still hard to find for lower-skilled workers.”

This story was updated to include information about the committee vote and a quote from Ryan.
 


326,000 Native-Born Americans Lost Their Job in November: Why This Remains the Most Important Jobs Chart

 By Tyler Durden

 ZeroHedge.com, December 5, 2015
. . .
We are confident that one can make the case that there are considerations on both the labor demand-side (whether US employers have a natural tendency to hire foreign-born workers is open to debate) as well as on the supply-side: it may be easier to obtain wage-equivalent welfare compensation for native-born Americans than for their foreign-born peers, forcing the latter group to be much more engaged and active in finding a wage-paying job.

However, the underlying economics of this trend are largely irrelevant: as the presidential primary race hits a crescendo all that will matter is the soundbite that over the past 8 years, 2.7 million foreign-born Americans have found a job compared to only 747,000 native-born. The result is a combustible mess that will lead to serious fireworks during each and every subsequent GOP primary debate, especially if Trump remains solidly in the lead.

 . . .
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-05/326000-native-born-americans-lost-their-job-november-why-remains-most-important-jobs


Placating Americans with Fake Immigration Law Enforcement

 How our leaders create fantasy 'solutions' for our immigration-related vulnerabilities.

 By Michael Cutler

 FrontPageMag.com, December 4, 2015


Therefore the Visa Waiver Program should have been terminated after the terror attacks of 9/11 yet it has continually been expanded.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/12/amnesty-hoax-to-keep-wages-depressed.html


It is clear that the overarching goal of a succession of administrations and many members of Congress, irrespective of political party affiliation, is to keep our borders open and take no meaningful action to stop that flow of aliens into the United States.
. . .
The obvious question is why the Visa Waiver Program is considered so sacrosanct that even though it defies the advice and findings of the 9/11 Commission no one has the moral fortitude to call for simply terminating this dangerous program.

The answer can be found in the incestuous relationship between the Chamber of Commerce and its subsidiary, the Corporation for Travel Promotion, now doing business as Brand USA.

The Chamber of Commerce has arguably been the strongest supporter of the Visa Waiver Program, which currently enables aliens from 38 countries to enter the United States without first obtaining a visa.

The U.S. State Department provides a thorough explanation of the Visa Waiver Program on its website.

Incredibly, the official State Department website also provides a link, “Discover America,” on that website which relates to the website of The Corporation for Travel Promotion, which is affiliated with the travel industries that are a part of the “Discover America Partnership.”
. . .
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261005/placating-americans-fake-immigration-law-michael-cutler


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!

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!