Tuesday, September 5, 2017



Bohemia’s Strange Trip

Fifty years after the Summer of Love, freedom flourishes in San Francisco—if you can afford the rent. Summer 2017 
Arts and Culture

San Francisco, that most forward-looking of cities, has looked backward this summer. Half a century after an estimated 100,000 young Americans descended on the 20 blocks surrounding the intersection of Haight and Ashbury Streets to “tune in, turn on, and drop out,” the city has commemorated the birth of America’s counterculture. A frenzy of nostalgia—exhibitions, concerts, conferences, lectures, installations, street fairs, walking and “magical mystery” bus tours—has celebrated all things “hippie.” More than 50 of San Francisco’s best-known institutions—the California Historical Society, de Young Fine Arts Museum, University of California at Berkeley, San Francisco State University, San Francisco’s ballet and opera companies, dozens of art galleries, and private merchants—paid tribute to 1967’s Summer of Love, iconic shorthand for a decade that not only shattered the city’s and the nation’s cultural and political norms but also gave birth to a countermovement that elected Ronald Reagan as California’s governor—and, in 1981, the nation’s president. In 1966, Reagan ran explicitly against student activism in Berkeley, which was then merging with the growing youth movement across the bay in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood to create the hippie counterculture.
California’s political schizophrenia, an enduring hallmark of the state’s politics, may have predated that fateful summer, argues Adam Hirschfelder, director of strategic initiatives for the California Historical Society, but it was “deeply exacerbated by the 1960s counterculture.” It is an irony not lost on some sponsors of these myriad anniversary “happenings” that, while San Francisco has been celebrating the youth culture that evolved into “San Francisco values”—left-wing or rigidly liberal politics, social tolerance, gender and sexual freedom, a shared sense of community, concern about the planet’s inherent fragility, and an embrace of change—President Donald Trump was marking a half-year in the White House by proclaiming in tweets and speeches the triumph of his own unorthodox, nostalgic political upheaval, one aimed at making America “great” again.
Today, San Francisco is better known as the home of another kind of revolution—that of high tech and Silicon Valley, which, by some accounts, owes much to the ideas and institutions that emerged during that fateful summer 50 years ago. It’s no accident, many argue, that the Bay Area became high tech’s geographic and spiritual global headquarters. Information, too, wants to be “free.”
By now, the information revolution has long since overrun the countercultural revolution, at least economically. Well-heeled techies have displaced latter-day hippies, says Stannous Fluoride, a wry, well-informed guide for Flower Power Walking Tours in the Haight. He spoke with me while guiding tourists along the Haight’s tree-lined streets and elegant late-Victorian houses, the so-called Painted Ladies, where Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane—and, yes, the mass murderer Charles Manson and Jonestown’s infamous Reverend Jim Jones—once lived or hung out. “What helped make the counterculture possible was cheap rent,” he says. But since 1987, San Francisco’s median home price has exceeded New York’s, and for years, the city has had the dubious distinction of being the nation’s most expensive; it appeared last year on the Guardian newspaper’s list of the world’s ten costliest places to live. The older, avant-garde Beats and, later, the teenage hippies who flocked here could not have afforded to live in the city today. The musicians who combined elements of jazz, blues, folk, and rock and roll at the Fillmore West and the Avalon Ballroom to produce a quintessentially American sound would not be able to pay the rates at even a decrepit recording studio today, much less the run-down house at 710 Ashbury Street once shared by San Francisco–born Jerry Garcia and other members of the Grateful Dead, the band that embodied the counterculture spirit.
Heroin, opioids, and crime are on the rise again in Fog City. Homelessness has again become a plague, and not only in the Haight. Billionaires step over sleeping bags and dodge dog feces on sidewalks to enter some of the nation’s most expensive restaurants. A city with more dogs than children, San Francisco has become, like New York, a city of extremes of wealth and poverty, with too few of the middle-class adults upon whom urban cultural and economic vibrancy ultimately depend.
According to Salon founder David Talbot, a San Francisco Chroniclecolumnist and author of Season of the Witch, a sweeping chronicle of the counterculture, “San Francisco values” did not “come into the world with flowers in their hair,” he wrote. “They were born howling in blood and strife.” As his book and the most forthright of the commemorations make clear, San Francisco endured years of “frantic and often violent conflict” after that much celebrated summer of ’67—the political assassinations of a mayor and the first openly gay member of the city’s Board of Supervisors, bombings, riots, kidnappings, serial race murders, antigay street mayhem, the biggest mass suicide in history in Jonestown, and a panic-inducing AIDS epidemic—before the city finally “made peace with itself and its new identity.”
Still, as Talbot argues, the counterculture could have been born only in this city of outcasts. Despite its modern-day obsession with astrology and all things spiritual, San Francisco, or Yerba Buena, as it was initially known, has always been unapologetically ribald, eccentric, and moneygrubbing. While most of America’s eastern cities were founded by God-fearing Puritans seeking freedom to practice their faith and form communities of decorum, the men who came to the Bay Area were schemers and dreamers, attracted by the lure of gold, copper, and silver, or by the opportunity to sell life’s essentials to those hoping to acquire them. (See “California Emerges,” Winter 2015.) By 1866, Talbot reports, the city had 31 saloons for every place of worship. Even the great earthquake of 1906, which some evangelical preachers considered God’s verdict on “Sodom Francisco,” failed to dampen the raucous, bar- and burlesque-filled energy and profits generated by the Barbary Coast. William A. Kelley, a visitor in the early 1990s, described San Francisco as a city of “precocious depravity.”
By the 1930s, however, the city’s more staid, God-fearing Irish—and later, Italian-Catholic families—had solidified their political control and imposed a new, unaccustomed order. San Francisco’s upper class had long been at least half-Catholic, a distinction among American cities shared only by Baltimore and New Orleans, notes Michael Anton, a native San Franciscan and critic of the city and its culture. The Catholic Church’s influence permeated key institutions, particularly city hall and the San Francisco police department. Cops routinely rounded up gays and lesbians in midnight raids. At the same time, the radical longshoremen’s union and the Democratic Party became embedded in the city’s political DNA.
San Francisco has always been unapolegetically ribald, eccentric, and moneygrubbing.
But San Francisco’s inherent rowdiness could not be suppressed forever. It erupted once again in the mid-1950s, says historian Dennis McNally, when poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s City Lights Press (founder of the eponymous bookstore) published Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl,” warning that America was becoming a soulless monster of consumerism and conformity. “Howl” “lit a fuse and defined a mass of disaffected proto-artists who didn’t buy into mainstream values,” McNally wrote in an essay for the de Young museum’s catalog of its April-August exhibition Summer of Love, Art, Fashion, and Rock and Roll, a display of some 300 rare and familiar concert posters, photos, films, interactive music-and-light shows, and the embroidered denim jeans and loose-fitting shirts and dresses that forever changed how young Americans, especially young women, dressed. Arrested and charged with obscenity for selling Ginsberg’s poem, Ferlinghetti and the clerk who had sold the book to an undercover cop stood trial. Their acquittal in October 1957 was a pivotal free-speech victory that helped fuel the 1964 Free Speech Movement at Berkeley. Another precursor of the coming upheaval came in 1960, when protesters ran the House Un-American Activities Committee out of San Francisco after it tried holding hearings in the city. In 1965, psychedelic proselytizers Ken Kesey and Timothy Leary, along with members of the Grateful Dead, began hosting “acid parties,” at which LSD and other mind-bending drugs spiked communal punch bowls and were distributed to runaways for free.
Many historians date the unofficial birth of the Summer of Love to the winter of 1967—specifically, to January 14, 1967, when tens of thousands of “freaks,” as hippies then called themselves, gathered in Golden Gate Park for a “Gathering of the Tribes for a Human Be-In.” For a full day, they ate, chanted, sang, and listened to rock bands, poems by Ginsberg, Gary Snyder, and Michael McClure, and speeches by Timothy Leary, Shunryu Suzuki Roshi (the “primary apostle for Zen Buddhism in America,” as McNally calls him), and Berkeley radicals like Jerry Rubin. At day’s end, audience members picked up the trash, leaving the park spotless, to the amazement of police. The media took note, finding in the gatherings in and near the Haight a sharp counterpoint to the bloodshed of the Vietnam War. Hippie culture made the cover of Time. John Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas wrote a song encouraging people to attend the Monterey International Pop Festival in June wearing “flowers in your hair.” To ensure that they did, the festival flew in 10,000 flowers from Hawaii.
As legions of teenagers eagerly anticipating summer break made plans to travel to San Francisco, city government looked at the impending human flood with indifference. Meetings between Haight merchants seeking help from the mayor and city officials came to naught. The Haight would have to fend for itself. The “Diggers,” political provocateurs and members of a former mime troupe, provided volunteer services for the youth pouring in to the city—free food and clothing, “feed-ins” near City Hall, and a parade to celebrate “the death of money.” The Diggers sought to “liberate San Francisco’s consciousness” by arguing that food, shelter, health care, and even entertainment were not commodities but fundamental human rights. Their posters and street manifestos were the most “passionate expressions of what would later be called San Francisco values,” McNally wrote.
To rescue teenage runaways from being swept up in police dragnets, activist lawyers formed the Haight-Ashbury Legal Organization, or HALO, funded by the Grateful Dead and other bands’ benefit concerts. In 1967, Huckleberry House, the nation’s first alternative shelter for runaways, opened its doors. That same year, Robert Conrich, a physician and LSD enthusiast, launched the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, which proclaimed: “Health care is a right, not a privilege,” according to Talbot. Kids freaking out during bad acid trips or bouts of suicidal depression filled the clinic’s “calm center,” where they received care from volunteer staff.
But these efforts were soon overwhelmed by the tens of thousands who flocked to the city that summer. Hard-drug merchants began replacing the dispensers of marijuana and LSD-spiked punch. The neighborhood’s fragile infrastructure crumbled under the weight of too many homeless people and too few city services, rendering the Summer of Love a “slightly cruel joke,” McNally observed. “By Labor Day, the Haight was a tourist carnival nightmare. By 1968, Haight Street would be inhabited by children shooting methedrine and heroin. The magic died hard.” Crime had doubled in the neighborhood by 1976.
Keepers of the counterculture flame note that some of what emerged from the Haight—especially what McNally calls a “Thoreauvian respect for the environment”—would eventually become mainstream beliefs. Many of the radical or fun-seeking counterculture pioneers may have left the Haight after the Diggers staged a “death of the Hippie” procession in October 1967, but they took their alternative ideas and lifestyles back home with them. Others went on to found communes and alternative communities elsewhere. Some activists would launch successful ventures—Stewart Brand, for instance, the army veteran who spent time on Ken Kesey’s bus, started the Whole Earth Catalog, which linked the counterculture to the digital future. “Counterculture values would be a significant part of the subsequent growth of Silicon Valley as the nation’s new technological center,” McNally wrote. “If you meditate in some fashion, or eat organic food, or do yoga, or support gay marriage, or are concerned about the environment and the survival of the planet, you are still swimming in the currents that picked up such a froth here in the 1960s.”
Others scoff at these ostensible achievements. San Francisco’s hedonist narcissism distracts from the huge challenges that the city now confronts—among them, scarce, overpriced housing and staggering income inequality. The top 1 percent of households in San Francisco’s metropolitan area earned $3.6 million on average in 2013, according to one report—44 times the average income of the bottom 99 percent. And San Francisco’s 1 percent, the Bay Area’s new gilded class, demands ever more from a city to which it gives relatively little philanthropically. Fund-raisers for impoverished children in South Sudan and to protect the Amazon are oversubscribed, while the city’s excellent opera company and ballet struggle financially.
It is San Francisco’s smug self-satisfaction that so enrages critics like Michael Anton, the San Francisco native who now works for the Trump White House in national-security communications. In a blistering 2015 critique in the Claremont Review of Books, Anton asserted that “San Francisco values” had come to reflect little more than a “confluence of hippie leftism and filthy lucre,” a marriage of convenience between “old-time materialism and hippie ‘morality.’ ” What kept the Summer of Love veneer going for so long, he asserted, is the implicit deal between the high-tech oligarchs and the hippie rank-and-file. “The latter not only decline to use their considerable propaganda skills to vilify the former, but cheerfully glorify and whitewash them,” he wrote. “The oligarchs in turn subsidize the lefties through nonprofits and make-work jobs” and, more important, “take their cues from them on matters of politics not directly contrary to their economic interests.” Both groups benefit from what he called this “socio-intellectual money laundering.” The resulting policies have done little to create opportunities for an aspiring middle class that is neither elite nor bohemian.
Anton is not wrong about the less savory aspects of the counterculture. A notable omission in the city’s much touted tradition of “tolerance,” for instance, is that it rarely extends to politics. There is no welcome mat out for Republicans, especially conservatives. Student mobs at Berkeley boast about preventing conservative scholars from speaking on campus. Socially liberal but fiscally conservative activists like David Crane, who worked as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s finance director, struggle to raise funds for candidates willing to question the pension burdens being imposed on future generations by San Francisco liberals in the name of “workers’ rights.” Several Republican city residents confided that they would never display a Trump/Pence sticker on their car or home window for fear of vandalism.
Nor have many counterculture enthusiasts noted the irony of the use of the Summer of Love as yet another marketing tool for tourism, now a key industry for San Francisco. The San Francisco Travel Association predicts that some 25.6 million tourists will visit the city in 2017 and spend roughly $9.22 billion. Museums and other commemoration sponsors say that attendance is strong. “People throughout the world still care about what happened here when the counterculture was vibrant and organic,” said Hirschfelder of the California Historical Society, whose superb exhibition was curated by McNally. 
McNally concedes that some of the commemorations have been “silly and trivializing.” The Summer of Love “wasn’t about love-ins and long hair,” he said. “It was about a movement and a generation that changed this city, the nation, and the world. It was about a serious challenge to the status quo. And that,” he said, “is always to be honored.” Or, at least, remembered.


One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances!  MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM

Watch Live: AG Jeff Sessions Makes DACA Announcement


Tuesday at 11 a.m. ET, Attorney General Jeff Sessions will announce President Donald Trump’s decision regarding the continuance of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) policy.
Video courtesy of the Right Side Broadcast Network

Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for illegal aliens and nationwide amnesty than Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

While DACA – which gives temporary protected status to more than 800,000 illegal aliens – continues to be supported by the open borders lobby, corporate interests and Silicon Valley elites, Sessions has for years pushed back against the often times Democratic and Republican consensus on immigration and amnesty.
Here’s a look through Sessions’ heroic immigration patriotism against all odds:
1. Jeff Sessions: America Not an Oligarchy Where Masters of the Universe Decide Immigration Law
“I’m sure this will make the activists, the politicians, and certain billionaire executives who enjoy dinner parties at the White House very happy that the president is doing these things,” Sessions said in September 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “But what about what’s good for America? What about what’s the interest of the American people? America is not an oligarchy. The masters of the universe, they don’t get to meet at the White House and decide how to run this country. When the American people learned what was in the Senate amnesty bill and guest worker bill that doubled the number of guest workers, for which every single Senate Democrat voted, the people said no, no, no.”
2. Jeff Sessions: Now Is the ‘Time to Stand Strong’ Against Obama’s Illegal Amnesty to Protect American Workers and Their Families
“President Obama’s executive amnesty violates the laws Congress has passed in order to create and implement laws Congress has refused to pass,” Sessions said of DACA in November of 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “The President is providing an estimated five million illegal immigrants with social security numbers, photo IDs, and work permits–allowing them to now take jobs directly from struggling Americans during a time of record immigration, low wages, and high joblessness.”
3. Sen. Sessions Releases Lengthy Timeline of Obama Administration’s Dismantling of Immigration Law
“Most recently, the President announced he would do what he once said only an ’emperor’ could do – grant unilateral amnesty, work permits, and access to government benefits to more than five million illegal immigrants,” Sessions wrote in his timeline, as Breitbart News reported. “This unprecedented action, combined with new ‘enforcement priorities’ for Department of Homeland Security personnel that exempt the vast majority of illegal immigrants from the threat of removal, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals directive, the ‘Morton’ memos, and numerous other lesser-reported but far-reaching Executive actions, has threatened not only our constitutional system, but our national sovereignty. Indeed, the idea of national, sovereign borders is being daily eviscerated by the President’s determination to write his own immigration rules in defiance of Congress and the American people.”
4. Jeff Sessions: ‘This Election Is the People’s Chance to Put a Stake’ in the ‘Heart’ of the Gang of Eight Bill
“People are not happy with their government,” Sessions said to Breitbart News in 2016. “They have asked and been promised for 30 years that they’d have a lawful system of immigration. The politicians just promise and don’t deliver. And they promised that we’re going to do better about trade, and here we have another now 5,000 page Obamatrade bill that politicians are advocating – Republicans too – and it ought not to pass.”
5. Jeff Sessions: Next President Must Commit to Lower Immigration Levels, Eliminate Amnesty
“The illegal 2012 amnesty helped spark our current border crisis by giving jobs and benefits to younger illegal immigrants. This benefits program continues to operate, although it violates the law in all the same ways as the court identified for the 2014 amnesty,” Sessions wrote in November of 2015, as Breitbart News reported.
6. Jeff Sessions: Melt Congress’ Phone Lines, Stop Obama’s Planned Executive Amnesty
“The American people have begged and pleaded for years for our laws to be enforced,” Sessions in 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “We have people in our own country living in violence, fear and poverty every single day. They have demanded an immigration policy that puts their jobs, wages and communities first. Every citizen should pick up the phone and ask of their congressional representative: where do you stand?”
7. Jeff Sessions: Obama’s Immigration Policies Hammer Black Workers
“A nation owes its first obligation to its own citizens,” Sessions said in October of 2014, as Breitbart News reported. “But our current immigration policy advantages the citizens of other countries over our own. Undeniably, one of the groups most hurt economically by unjust immigration policies are African-American citizens.”
8. Jeff Sessions: Corporate Media Wants to Silence Talk of Immigration and Trade in GOP Primary
“Immigration and trade are issues that are critical to the average American working person,” Sessions said in November of 2015, as Breitbart News reported. “If we don’t get this right, they’re going to be hammered. And I believe we’re heading in that direction, and our candidates are going to have to be forced to talk about it, and the American people are going to have to know where they stand on trade and immigration before the election.”
9. Jeff Sessions: ‘National Security Imperative’ to Stop Exec Amnesty
“It is a national security imperative to stop this executive amnesty,” Sessions said on the Senate floor in January of 2015, as Breitbart News reported.
10. Sen. Jeff Sessions: Obama ‘Committed to Escalating’ Lawlessness at Border
“There is now an unprecedented crisis unfolding at the border,” Sessions wrote for Breitbart News in June of 2014. “The flow of illegal immigrant youth across the southern border is on track to reach 130,000 next year–a projected increase of more than 2,000% from 2011. The White House estimates the cost of ‘resettling’ these illegal immigrants in the United States will reach $2.3 billion in a single year.”
11. Sen. Jeff Sessions: Congress Can ‘Never Acquiesce’ to Providing Tax Dollars to Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty
“The Court’s ruling is yet further affirmation that the President’s action – as the President himself admitted many times – is illegal,” Sessions said in February of 2015, as Breitbart News reported. “President Obama has suspended some 500 pages of existing immigration law passed by the representatives of the American people, and replaced it with the very measures those representatives have repeatedly rejected. The President’s action violates our laws, our Constitution, and the centuries of legal heritage that yielded our Republic.”
12. Jeff Sessions: Obama Exec Amnesty ‘Kick in the Teeth’ to American Workers
“The president’s plan will be a further kick in the teeth to down and struggling American workers,” Sessions declared in February of 2015, as Breitbart News reported.


Here’s how it breaks down; will make you want to be an illegal! 

"In reality, DACA is a shabby little temporary amnesty program that rewards underachievers and permits quite a few criminals to avail themselves of its benefits."


REPORT: The assault to finish off the American middle-class is NOT over

“The report noted that many illegals don't have jobs or have difficulty in landing good jobs because of local laws.”

“However, it identified several states that have begun easing employment laws so that illegals can get a job.”

Daily Caller reports that 2,139 DACA recipients have lost their status due to criminal activity. Those are the ones they've caught.

Here’s how it breaks down; will make you want to be an illegal!

The Shocking Staggering Cost of Mexico’s Invasion, Occupation, Looting and Crime Tidal Wave…. Then they go out and vote Democrat for more!

If President Trump decides to let the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) lapse or end it outright, it will be a deserved end to a magnet for illegal immigration based on an unconstitutional executive order by President Barack Hussein Obama...

DACA Was a Bad Dream

If President Trump decides to let the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) lapse or end it outright, it will be a deserved end to a magnet for illegal immigration based on an unconstitutional executive order by President Barack Hussein Obama who was frustrated that Congress failed to pass it as legislation named the DREAM Act. As syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer observed on Fox News’ Special Report at the time:
You can have executive orders that implement already existing laws. What Obama has done in the DREAM Act, which is exactly what you've talked about. Essentially he passed a law by executive order that the Congress had rejected, wouldn't pass, that is unbelievably unconstitutional. It's as if a Republican ran and said I don't like the capital gains tax, Congress rejects an abolition of that tax and then he orders the IRS not to collect it. People would be up in arms and would be impeaching. He's doing that over and over again on immigration
Even President Obama said he didn’t have the authority to do what he eventually did -- enact the Congressionally rejected DREAM Act through executive order:
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed -- and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.
Well said, until President Obama spoke out of the other side of his mouth and did it anyway. Now, if a Republican Congress wants to try again to pass a law it rejected under President Obama, they can try. Certainly profiles in porridge like House Speaker Paul Ryan and others have indicated that they would like tocomplete that part of President Obama’s fundamental transformation of America for him:
Congressional Republicans are looking to revive legislation that could give a deportation reprieve to thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, in turn easing the pressure on President Trump as he faces a deadline to decide the fate of a related Obama-era program.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., is leading the charge on a conservative version of the so-called Dream Act. The talks come as Trump prepares to announce whether he’ll keep the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program -- which was former President Barack Obama’s unilateral, executive-action version of Dream Act legislation…
On Friday, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said he supported a legislative solution to protect undocumented minors, but also urged the president to reconsider scrapping DACA.
"I actually don't think he should do that and I believe that this is something that Congress has to fix," Ryan said on radio station WCLO in Janesville, Wis., Friday. "President Obama did not have a legislative authority to do what he did."
Okay, the President Trump is undoing an illegal action and reestablishing the rule of law is something everyone should applaud. The DREAM Act or its DACA mutant, however, is something we shouldn’t applaud, if only because American children and their parents have dreams too and those are being underserved. Is it right, for example, that in some states illegal aliens can get in-state tuition rates but that the child of an Afghan war veteran from a neighboring state cannot?
How about repealing and replacing ObamaCare and fulfilling the dreams of overburdened taxpayers who have insurance premium payments higher than their mortgage payments and deductibles so high their insurance cards are worthless? How about passing tax cuts and repatriating American wealth parked overseas so entrepreneurs can fulfill their dreams of creating American jobs?
We are a nation of immigrants, legal immigrants, and we are also a nation of laws. Children were brought to this country illegally by their parents because we failed to enforce our immigration laws. Now would be a good time to start enforcing them.
Hans Von Spakovsky and David Inserra, writing in The Hill, made the case for ending DACA as an unconstitutional magnet for illegal aliens that rewards breaking the law by breaking the law:
As a sovereign nation, we have the right to decide who comes to the U.S. Even if we doubled our current legal immigration quotas, there would still be people who would enter or remain in the U.S. illegally. Enforcing our immigration laws encourages people to come to the U.S. legally and discourages illegal immigration.
Unfortunately, the U.S. government has for many years failed to faithfully enforce our immigration laws. This has inevitably encouraged more and more illegal immigration. DACA is the pinnacle of non-enforcement; not only does it protect illegal immigrants from deportation, it provides benefits that by law are reserved for American citizens and Whether DACA is good public policy or bad public policy is, however, ultimately irrelevant to whether President Trump should end the program. He should end it for the same reasons that the federal courts prevented President Obama from implementing the similar “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents” program or DAPA. Like DACA, DAPA provided an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens and gave them work authorizations and access to government benefits.legal immigrants. Why come to the U.S. legally if you can acquire many of the same benefits by coming illegally?...
the Fifth Circuit said, the fact that the president declined to enforce the law and remove illegal aliens “does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change.”
End DACA. And while we’re at it, pass some laws that put Americans first so that they can pursue their dreams. And, yes, welcome those who legally come here and dream of becoming American citizens who respect the rule of law, unlike President Obama.
Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared inInvestor’s Business DailyHuman EventsReason Magazine and the ChicagoSun-Times among 
other publications.          


“The percentage of foreign-born workers in the U.S. labor force has more than tripled over the last four decades and while the U.S. represents just 5 percent of the world’s population it attracts 20 percent of the world’s immigrants, according to a new report.”

Open the floodgates of our welfare state to the uneducated, impoverished, and unskilled masses of the world and in a generation or three America, as we know it, will be gone.

Those most impacted are middle class and lower middle class. It is they whose jobs are taken, whose raises are postponed, whose schools are filled with non-English speaking children that absorb precious resources for remedial English, whose public parks are trashed and whose emergency rooms serve as the local clinic for the illegal underground. 


In Mex-occupied CA, Mexican gangs now commit nearly half of all murders. In Los Angeles, Mexicans commit 93% of the murders. Really want open borders?



ONE AMERICAN COUNTY….under Mex occupation


The canards about DACA

To hear the media tell it, all 844,931 people within the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are paragons of virtue we Americans should be throwing ourselves at the knees of in gratitude for them coming to stay.
In reality, DACA is a shabby little temporary amnesty program that rewards underachievers and permits quite a few criminals to avail themselves of its benefits.
Daily Caller reports that 2,139 DACA recipients have lost their status due to criminal activity. Those are the ones they've caught.
“Most DACA terminations were based on the following infractions (not ranked): alien smuggling, assaultive offenses, domestic violence, drug offenses, DUI, larceny and thefts, criminal trespass and burglary, sexual offenses with minors, other sex offenses and weapons offenses,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told The Daily Caller.
Bear in mind that the bar is very low for acceptance into the DACA program. Successful entrants can have up to three misdemeanors which is why virtually all applicants are accepted. According to the 'guidelines' (read: loosely and subjectively applied rules) on the application form, anyone can enter DACA if they:
Has not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
Three or more misdemeanors? Meaning, two are O.K.? And the guidelines themselves don't even number the misdemeanors - which can range from gun violations, to graffiti-spraying, to wife-beating, to drunk driving - meaning, any number misdemeanors are probably acceptable as the 'guidelines are likely ignored by bureaucrats anxious to sign DREAMERS up.
What's more, DACA graduation rates from the program's vaunted requirement for applicants to enter college are below the national average, the Daily Callerreported, in sharp contrast to the media's reporting of DREAMERS as ivy league paragons, in addition to the criminals kicked out:.
While this is a small number in the pool of all DACA beneficiaries — lower than crime rates among Americans — so are the cases of “Dreamer” Harvard students, as DACA college graduation rates also lag behind the native population.
So let's do the math on how easy it is for anyone, no matter how little merit, to get into the DACA program that's now being lauded by the media:
According to official data from the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, from 2012 through 2016:
1,451,195 applicants were accepted and 90,765 were rejected, making a grand total of 1,541,960 total applicants.
90,765 divided by 1,541,960 times 100 is a rejection rate of 5.89%. That means 94.11% of all applicants no matter how gamy their paperwork, no matter what their two misdemeanors or other 'acceptable' criminal activity, and no matter how low-achieving in college, have gotten in, ahead of all legitimate immigrants who have waited in line. One set of laws for them, one set for everyone else. Apparently, it takes a lot to get rejected from the DACA program, an applicant would almost have to work harder not to get in than to get in, given the insanely high acceptance rate. Clearly, it's being given out cheaply, and given the people who have abused it, it's clear they've treated it for exactly as little as they've paid for it.
All the while, the media falsely continue to portray DREAMERS as paragons of the American dream and stunning American success stories. The data tell a different story.
THE LA RAZA PLAN: California’s final surrender to fly the Mexican flag within 4 years.

"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."  -- - EXCELSIOR --- national newspaper of Mexico


They claim all of North America for Mexico!



Open Borders, Corporate Interests Brace for End of DACA


With President Donald Trump expected to end DACA for more than 800,000 DREAMers, two special interest groups will take a major hit: the open borders lobby and corporate interests.

As Breitbart News reported, Trump is expected to end the Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program where more than 720,000 young illegal aliens have been able to fill U.S. jobs by obtaining a work permit.
Though screening for DACA was previously touted as being sufficient in keeping criminals out, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) revealed that more than 1,500 recipients had their status revoked for being criminals or gang members.
Perhaps no two interest groups will be hit harder than the open borders lobby and corporate interests protecting cheaper labor sources.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach told Breitbart Texas that open borders activists were working vigorously to pressure 10 attorneys general who threatened legal action against the Trump Administration, should DACA continue operating past September 5.
While the pro-amnesty activists were successful in getting Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III to leave the coalition legal threat against DACA, as Breitbart News reported, they have been unsuccessful in stopping the suit altogether.
Likewise, the George Soros-funded organization ‘United We Dream’ is expected to take a major blow with the end of DACA, as a large portion of the organization’s open borders advocacy relies on propping up the program.
For United We Dream Executive Director Cristina Jimenez, who came to the U.S. illegally at 13, the end of DACA would be a personal blow, as she was a member of the organizing campaign that helped Obama put the amnesty program into force.
In the world of big business, the end of DACA will be a loss for companies enjoying six years of cheaper labor.
Despite pushback from tech CEOs like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, ending DACA could be a major stimulus for the 4.4 percent of unemployed Americans who will see more than 700,000 new job openings across the country.
As Breitbart Texas reported, latest studies show that when DACA is ended, it could result in 30,000 new openings each month for Americans. Pro-DACA Cato Analyst David Bier acknowledged the openings for Americans seeking employment, writing that companies will have to begin “recruiting, hiring, and training 720,000”.
Microsoft President Bradford Smith revealed last week in a push to defend DACA that the company employs at least 27 recipients, while Apple CEO Tim Cook said his company maintains 250.

Amnesty would add 100 million more illegals and cost Legals trillions!