Thursday, November 16, 2017


“If the Constitution did not forbid cruel and unusual punishment, the sentence I
would like to see imposed would place both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the same 8-


Hillary, Billary, Cosby, Buttman Affleck, Oliver Stone, Harvey Weinstein and their boy Obomb….. new definitions of
degradation and sleaze.                          

Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy -

Alec Baldwin: ‘We Can’t Be Mean Enough’ to Trump

Craig Bannister
 By Craig Bannister | November 15, 2017 | 3:08 PM EST

Baldwin impersonates Trump at protest rally. (Screenshot)
“We can’t be mean enough to this guy,” actor/anti-Trump activist Alec Baldwin said of President Donald Trump on Tuesday.
Baldwin, who impersonates Trump on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live,” was addressing an audience at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., when he made the declaration.
To justify his vitriol, Baldwin said he expected Trump to become a better human being once in office, The Daily Mail reports:
'I really expected him to change,' Baldwin said. 
'And I thought to myself, my God, he would finally come to his senses and say what a tremendous opportunity this is for me as a human being,' Baldwin said.  
'Forget about it,' Baldwin scoffed.


Hillary, Billary, Cosby, Buttman Affleck, Oliver Stone, Harvey Weinstein and their boy Obomb….. new definitions of
degradation and sleaze.                          

Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy -

…. The parasitism of  Hillary,  Billary, Obomb, Heffner, Cosby, Buttman Affleck, Oliver Stone, Weinstein and the rest.

Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy -




"We are witnessing an astonishing escalation in Christian persecution, like we have rarely seen since the first century," writes Johnnie Moore in his new book called The Martyr’s Oath: Living for the Jesus They’re Willing to Die. 

What’s all the fuss about? If only we threw off our secular ignorance, religious ignorance and fearful ignorance, then we could interpret the Quran wisely and rationally; then we could reach this conclusion: “The religion of the Quran is ...

The Happy, Harmless Quran

What’s all the fuss about? If only we threw off our secular ignorance, religious ignorance and fearful ignorance, then we could interpret the Quran wisely and rationally; then we could reach this conclusion: “The religion of the Quran is a religion of peace.”
So says Garry Wills on p. 140 in his book What the Quran Meant: And Why It Matters.
But we can skip over his first three chapters on the three kinds of ignorance mentioned above. It seems no challenge can be rational, by definition, since peace and good will dominate the Quran, and it is actually misunderstood by the ignorant. The rest of his book is intended to correct the hysterics.
Instead, let’s analyze chapter 7 on peace, chapter 8 on jihad, chapter 9 on shariah, and chapters 11-13 on women’s issues.
Chapter 7
Apparently the Quran extols an almost global family of believing Jews, Christians, and Muslims, living in harmony and tolerance. Great for Western utopians, as leftists tend to be.
However, he neglects to mention Muhammad’s atrocities against the Jews, when he ordered 900 men and pubescent boys to be slaughtered and the women and girls to be enslaved, after he conquered them outside Medina, which the Quran approves of (33:26-27). Was the atrocity a one-off? Islamic history says Jews and Christians suffered death and persecution and second-class treatment, as Muslims waged aggressive and unprovoked jihad for centuries. (See chapter 8, next).
The Quran calls Jews “apes and pigs” (7:166, 2:65, and 5:60). One could place those verses in their historical context to soften the extreme rhetoric, but for centuries now they have opened the door to deep prejudice.
As for apostasy, he casually brushes aside its punishment by equating biblical Christianity with quranic Islam, not mentioning the fact that the first generations of Christians never executed anyone for leaving the faith (nor does the New Testament order this), while Muhammad and his earliest caliphs certainly did, on the authority of the Quran and his example.
Chapter 8
As for jihad, it is clear that he does not understand the chronology of the Medinan chapters, for he repeats this tiresome stock misinterpretation: “The Quran never advocates war as a means of religious conversion, since ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256)” (p. 132). However, that verse was written when Muhammad first arrived in Medina and was weak. But as soon as he grew in military might, he compelled all sorts of people to convert or die (polytheists), or convert or die or pay a second-class citizen tax (Christians and Jews) in 9:29. (A prejudicial tax based on religion does not even squeak by as tolerant, one more contradiction of his utopian chapter 7.)
Further, he omits an adequate discussion of qital, which exclusively means war, slaughter, and killing. In light of that, his long analysis of 2:191-94 (an early Medinan passage) overlooks one key clause about fighting for the Kabah shrine back in Mecca: “Fight [qital] until… worship is devoted to God.” Clearly Muhammad says here that he would never let the Meccans rest until he made it a place devoted (only) to Allah. And in fact that is what he did from 623 until 630, when he finally conquered Mecca with 10,000 jihadists and kicked out or killed the unclean polytheists (9:28).
The most egregious oversight in his book, as noted, is the missing analysis of Quran 9:29, which is an open-ended call to qital inside and outside of Arabia. Ever since Islam’s prophet marched north with 20,000 jihadists to Tabuk in late 630 to fight the Byzantines, who never showed up, Muslims have been waging the same aggressive jihad/qital for over 460 years before the pope called the first crusade. Wills should know this; instead he seems to assume that Muslims peacefully acquired the lands they now hold, and the crusaders unjustly picked on them. Yet 9:29, reflecting the Tabuk jihad, set the institutional genetic code from then until now.
Chapter 9
This chapter on shariah is better because he discusses the harsh punishments in the Quran, but the Old Testament is worse, he is quick to point out to justify the Quran, an ineffective, distracting ploy.
Further, he is wrong to believe that only the Islamic State imposed them. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria, for example, have done so and still do. Various websites like Amnesty International and Jihad Watch (which Wills sniffs at) keep track of them.
And no, it is not wise to allow any part of shariah into our legal system. Numerous harmless religious laws, like washing or praying five times a day, are irrelevant to the law, except to protect these practices. But the Quran’s punishments and domestic and commercial laws, for example, are out of date and must not be allowed in the West (or anywhere else).
Chapters 11-13
His three chapters on women’s issues are actually very solid in most places, like divorce and the few verses that respect womankind. Maybe the Muslim feminists whom he lists can indeed make something of those positive verses. However, the problem is not the abstract positive verses, but the concrete oppressive ones.
His discussion on wife beating, for example, is thorough, except his odd comment about a husband using a tooth stick to strike his wife. “I think a modern Muslim who threatened his wife with a toothbrush might become guilty of killing her -- with laughter” (p. 189). In the seventh century tooth sticks could be long and inflict injury. And why be so cavalier about a husband raising his hand against his wife, at all?
Many traditions indeed report through Aisha herself that she was betrothed to Muhammad at six and the “wedding” was consummated at nine, immediately afterwards. So Wills is wrong to plead ignorance about her age at consummation (p. 186, note 3). Unsurprisingly, he does not bring up 65:4, which assumesprepubescent girls are fair game.
To wrap up, since Wills takes many shots at the Bible, as Western scholars delight to do (though none or hardly any shots at the Quran), here is a thought experiment: If everyone on the planet were to follow the teachings of the four Gospels and epistles to their fullest, the world would be much better off, such as no more wars, no legal mutilations, love for womankind and humanity generally, and a lot of grace.
Following the Quran to its fullest would produce these results, to name a few: too many bruises and not enough equal legal rights for womankind; no religious freedom to critique Islam and Muhammad; no grace (a missing doctrine in the legalistic Quran); legal floggings and mutilations; jihad/qital might not cease (Muslims still wage war on Muslims).
Rather, Wills reassures us that the troublesome verses in the Quran are simply misunderstood and just fine as they are or maybe after minor interpretational adjustments.
But we are not the ones who are ignorant of what it really says. The fault lies not in our “confusion,” but in the Quran itself, whose extreme verses are clear enough.
Ironically, too often he is the one who seems ignorant of unfavorable evidence in the Quran, so his short book comes across mostly as a condescending and shallow exercise in special pleading and unfounded puffing.
No need to buy his book.
James Arlandson’s website is Live as Free People, where he has posted Thirty shariah lawsTen shariah laws that oppress women.

Koran 2:191 "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them"
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".

How 3000 Years of Jewish Civilization in the Arab World Vanished Overnight

By Lyn Julius

Vallentine Mitchell, 360 pp.

Hardcover, ISBN: 1910383643, $24.00

Book Description: Who are the Jews from Arab countries? What were relations with Muslims like? What made Jews leave countries where they had been settled for thousands of years? What lessons can we learn from the mass exodus of minorities from the Middle East? Lyn Julius undertakes to answer all these questions and more in Uprooted, the culmination of ten years of work studying these issues. Jews lived continuously in the Middle East and North Africa for almost 3,000 years. Yet, in just 50 years, their indigenous communities outside Palestine almost totally disappeared as more than 99 percent of the Jewish population fled. Those with foreign passports and connections generally left for Europe, Australia, or the Americas. Some 650,000-including a minority of ideological Zionists-went to Israel. Before the Holocaust they constituted ten percent of the world's Jewish population, and now over 50 percent of Israel's Jews are refugees from Arab and Muslim countries, or their descendants. This same process is now repeating in Christian and other minority communities across the Middle East. This book also assesses how well these Jews have integrated into Israel and how their struggles have been politicized. It charts the growing clamour for recognition, redress and memorialization for these Jewish refugees, and looks at how their cause can contribute to peace and reconciliation between Israel and the Muslim world.



The group of pro-amnesty GOP legislators is led by Rep. Dan Newhouse, a fruit-grower in Washington state whose district is now one-quarter Latino.

1) Mexico ended legal immigration 100 years
ago, except for Spanish blood.

2) Mexico is the 17th richest nation but pays 

the 220th lowest minimum wage to force their 

subjects to invade the USA. The expands 

territory for Mexicans, spreads the Spanish 

language, and culture and genotypes, while 

earning 17% of Mexico's gross GDP as 

Foreign Remittance Income.


The Trump Secret Deal with Narcomex:

NO E-VERIFY, NO ENFORCEMENT, NO (real) WALL and NO LEGAL NEED APPLY to keep wages depressed….. but isn’t that the Democrat Party’s amnesty plan in a nutshell???

Swamp Keeper Trump is hiring 70 illegals at his Swamp Palace of Mar Lago. 

1) Mexico ended legal immigration 100 years ago, except for Spanish blood.
2) Mexico is the 17th richest nation but pays the 220th lowest minimum wage to force their subjects to invade the USA. The expands territory for Mexicans, spreads the Spanish language, and culture and genotypes, while earning 17% of Mexico's gross GDP as Foreign Remittance Income.

GOP Leaders Debate Combination Plan to Cut Legal Immigration, Approve a DACA Amnesty

House leaders are considering a plan to cut legal immigration in exchange for approving some form of DACA amnesty, says GOP Rep. David Brat.

As reported in,
Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) said the Republicans are eying a plan consisting of three components favored by conservatives: An effort to discourage chain migration; the creation of a mandatory e-verify system to deter hiring immigrants in the country illegally; and the elimination of the diversity visa program. 
If those elements are included, Brat said, conservatives would support a fourth provision: protections for the people eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, an Obama-era initiative which President Trump dismantled in September…
“The numbers from those three pieces I just mentioned clearly outweigh the DACA — by a lot,” he said. “And so you’re just saying, ‘OK, we can deal with 700,000 here [in DACA] because we’re getting a reduction in millions here.’ ”
If the three-for-one proposal become law, it would completely change U.S. immigration laws, which have created a low-wage economy by importing a resident population of roughly 32 million legal immigrants, plus roughly 12 million illegal immigrants, plus 2 million temporary workers plus 1 million white-collar guest-workers
Under current laws, the federal government imports 1 million legal immigrants each year, even though 4 million young Americans enter the labor market to seek decent jobs. The one-in-four annual inflow of foreign workers reduces business incentives to fund training or buy labor-saving machinery, widens geographic disparities, shifts $500 billion a year from employees to investors, and helps keep salaries near 1973 wage levels.
Brat has sponsored his own reform bill, which would halve legal immigration by ending chain migration and kill the visa lottery program. His plan would also reduce illegal immigration by requiring companies use the E-Verify program — but would not offer any form of amnesty benefits to the Democratic Party. “My three pieces are an absolute minimum that should be included in any leadership proposal and that anything more than basic DACA at 700,000 [beneficiaries] is out of the question,” Brat said in response to a question from Breitbart News. 
chain migration
In contrast, Democrats are pushing a bill, dubbed the Dream Act, which would provide a fast-track to citizenship for 3.6 million illegals, and enable chain-migration for roughly 10 million additional foreign nationals. Democrats say they are confident they can pressure Trump to sign the bill and force him to give up on his pro-American immigration policy. 
But Trump won the 2016 election because of his immigration policy and is unlikely to drop his October 8 immigration principles just before the 2018 election. In recent weeks, Trump and his staff have toughened his position, which now calls for passage of the three measures in the House proposal — ending chain-migration, killing the visa lottery and mandating E-Verify — in exchange for some form of DACA extension. 
A group of Senate Republicans is working with the White House and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley to come up with some form of DACA extension in the new year. Senators are keeping very quiet about their discussion, but the Senator’s public statements and leaks suggest the Senators want an unpopular, pro-business, cheap-labor amnesty, dressed up in a few token border-security measures. That cheap-labor option, however, is risky because GOP voters hate amnesty and strongly prefer the RAISE Act being pushed by Sen. Tom Cotton and Sen. David Perdue.  Moreover, polls show declining voter interest in a DACA amnesty, ensuring no benefits in the ballot box. 
One obvious option for the Senate to do nothing until the arrival of more GOP Senators after the 2018 election when some of the 10 Democrats in Trump states will likely be replaced by populist GOP Senators.
In the House, Brat learned about the three-for-one proposal from one of the GOP legislators serving on a task force created by House Speaker Paul Ryan. 
Ryan as has asked a group of legislators to develop an immigration plan for passage in early 2018. The group includes Virginia Rep. Robert Goodlatte, Texas Reps. Michael McCaul, John Carter and Will Hurd, Arizona Rep. Martha McSally and Idaho Rep. Raul Labrador. The group has not settled on a plan but is debating whether to push an unpopular, business-friendly amnesty or the three-for-one plan described by Brat, or just punt.
Ryan is expected to play a big role in deciding which plan to push. But he has a long history of supporting unpopular, cheap-labor plans — such as President George W. Bush’s corporatist “any willing worker” plan — which have allowed Democrats to import millions of anti-business voters. Ryan has been very close-mouthed about the possible plan, but on November 9 he said:
“Our members are having lots of conversations. We have a working group on this issue, and that working group is now going to spread out and start talking to our broader conference … active discussions are underway with our members about how the DACA solution should occur. “
On November 15, Ryan told Fox News that “we’re planning on keeping that separate from spending,” which will be set in a December debates.
Florida GOP Rep. Chris Curbelo said November 9 he had talked to some of the legislators on Ryan panel, but planned to push his own amnesty, dubbed the “Recognizing America’s Children Act.” The “America’s children” in Curbelo’s bill amount to roughly 1.4 million imported sons and daughters of illegal foreign immigrants. “There will be a lot of different options” for GOP legislators to choose from, Curbelo told a group of passive reporters at a Hill briefing.
But GOP legislators are split. Some want to go for a pro-American package, others favor a corporatist package that would help business and Democrats, and others just want to avoid an amnesty that would anger voters.
Many legislators do not understand public attitudes about immigration, in part, because their usual pollsters also being paid by their business clients to tout an amnesty.
The industry-funded “nation of immigrants” polls pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants. But other “fairness” polls show that voters also put a much higher priority on helping their families, neighbors, and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy. That political power of that fairness priority was made clear in November 2016 when Americans picked a pro-reform real-estate developer for the White House and sent the Democrats’ cheap-labor and amnesty advocate into near-retirement.
The House’s proposed triple-benefit of reduced immigration would be packaged with the singular cost of an amnesty, which will generate intense opposition among GOP voters. That opposition can be very intense. In 2014, amnesty-opponents blocked the pro-business “Gang of Eight” cheap-labor-and-amnesty bill, then flipped nine Senate seats to the GOP and then elected Trump in 2016.
Many polls show the public strongly wants immigration policy to favor Americans over immigrants, by very lopsided numbers. Here’s the key result from an August 2014 survey where Kellyanne Conway explored Americans’ views about immigration, jobs, and fairness: “Overall, 77 percent of Conway’s likely-voter respondents said Americans should be favored [in job hiring decisions] over immigrants. That opinion was shared by 88 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of independents and 78 percent of moderates … 92 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of independents, 63 percent of Hispanics and 53 percent of liberals say the government has not done enough enforcement.”
 Also, industry polls overstate public support for illegals. A recent Politico poll also shows declining voter interest in passing a DACA amnesty. Other polls — and the 2016 election — show that many Latino voters also prefer immigration curbs even as they publicly announce support for an amnesty that would cut their wages, crowd their children’s schools, spur crime in their neighborhoods and push them out of the middle-class. 
State polls also show the public view prioritizes Americans over immigrants. For example, ten polls in 10 swing states conducted in the summer of 2017 by NumbersUSA, a pro-reform group, show overwhelming support for immigration rules which help Americans.
In Michigan, for example, where Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow is up for election, the poll shows that 61 percent of people “strongly” support “setting up rules to ensure that businesses give first preference for jobs to American workers and legal immigrants already in this country before businesses can ask for new immigrant workers.” Only 10 percent “somewhat” or “strongly” oppose that rule. The Michigan poll also showed that 74 percent of people say “business should be required to try harder to recruit and train from groups with the highest unemployment,” while only 11 percent said, “government should continue to bring in new immigrants to compete for jobs.”
Immigration reformers tell Breitbart News they want the GOP to reach for a victory, instead of just blocking a DACA amnesty. But the reform groups also have to be careful not to alienate their anti-amnesty supporters and they argue opposition to amnesty can only be overcome by wrapping it up in an ambitious, pro-employee, populist bill.
“This is the best correlation of forces that the immigration hawks have ever had, so it is absolutely time to take the initiative,” said Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies told Breitbart News. The strategic goal should be piece-by-piece bills which drive down the numbers of arriving workers and migrants, even if the number-reducing deals require some limited amnesties of current illegals, he said, adding “ultimately it is [all about] numbers.”
“Getting reasonable [numerical] limits on immigration and ensuring that the people we do admit are net contributors to the country ought to be the primary job not just for Republicans but for anyone making public policy,” said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. GOP leaders “have a great opportunity and they seem anxious to blow it,” he added.
The many illegals who might want to accept the three-for-one deal will be silenced by Democrats and the media. In 2013, progressives pressured a group of young illegals to reject a deal that would provide work-permits to young illegals, according to a 2013 report in the New York Times:
“A national organization of young immigrants said Wednesday that it would press for a “direct and straightforward” seven-year pathway to citizenship for all 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, and would not support measures that only offered citizenship to young people brought to the United States as children.
Leaders of the organization, the United We Dream network, issued 20 principles they would push for in the debate over an overhaul of the immigration laws, which is rapidly gathering speed in Washington. The young immigrants, who call themselves Dreamers, rejected proposals that would tie their progress toward citizenship to measurements of border security. They said any legislation should allow foreign-born partners in same-sex couples to gain residency.”
Senate Democrats — backed up by an army-sized chorus of business donors and lobbyists— oppose any reduction in the supply of new workers and immigrants. They have 48 seats in the Senate, so they can block any immigration legislation if they stay united. “My guess is that they would demand a much bigger amnesty,” said Jenks, the policy director at NumbersUSA. She continued:
The Democratic Party sees immigrants — legal and illegal — as future Democratic voters. It does not matter how they get to voting status, whether through amnesty or immigration status, they just want them to get here. I don’t think [a deal] is possible if the 10 Democrats who are up for election in states where Trump won don’t listen to their constituents. It is possible if their constituents basically force them to vote the right way on the package … in exchange for a DACA amnesty.
Democratic party opposition to a high-wages-and-small-amnesty package would be a high-risk strategy before the 2018 elections. If the Senate forced a vote, at least 10 Democratic Senators up for election would be forced to either reject a GOP bill which provides populist benefits to many voters — plus a limited amnesty to younger illegals — or else reject the deal because it is not beneficial enough for illegal immigrants. That would leave the GOP leaders with a popular and populist bill heading into the 2018 elections against a pro-illegal, obstructionist Democratic Party. 
The three-for-one proposal would also face brutal opposition behind closed doors from business lobbyists who are paid by the CEOs and investors who will lose billions of dollars if Congress ends the national cheap-labor economic policy. Several business groups have admitted that Trump-backed cuts in the labor supply would push up wages. But higher wages also push down profits, so slashing the stock-market wealth of many business leaders, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the IBM has already denounced immigration cuts. “We oppose attempts to cut legal immigration,” Neil Bradley, the chamber’s policy chief, said November 16. Cuts are “harmful for the economy and for America as a whole,” he said, according to a report in Arkansas Online.
Business lobbyists have huge leverage. Many are former staffers and personal friends of the legislators, and many can draft company subcontractors in the legislators’ districts to impose extra pressure. The lobbyists can grant or withdraw donations, fund push-polls, and pressure legislators’ peers and caucus leaders. 
For example, business leaders may try to convert a ban on chain-migration into a program to import salary-cutting white-collar workers, warned Rosemary Jenks, policy director at NumbersUSA.  “The fear would be that because Ryan is tight with the business community on cheap labor, that when they talk about eliminating chain-migration, they’re actually talking about turning transferring the family-based [chain-migration] visas into the employment-based visas,” she said. 
Business leaders also have a huge impact on young reporters, few of whom have the freedom — or even interest — to follow the flow of money through the immigration debate up to Wall Street. In fact, many reporters view the immigration debate as a matter of social justice for foreign migrants and are simply uninterested in the economic impact on American voters or even on themselves, their white-collar peers and their future children.
The power of business is enhanced by the universities, which are treated as noble arbiters of justice by many reporters — even though the universities profit from laws that allow them to provide work-permits to their cash-on-the-barrel foreign students. In 2013, the universities tried to expand the OPT cash-cow program by supporting a law in the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill which would allow them to sell green cards to an unlimited number of their foreign graduates at a huge discount from the card’s real value. 




The agriculture industry is especially powerful in the GOP. Already, for example, the farm lobby has persuaded Goodlatte’s judiciary committee to vote for a law allowing them to create an imported army of 1 million very low wage H-2C guest-workers in place of better-paid Americans and immigrants.
The sting of economic loss is also rubbed raw by establishment’s frequent declaration that immigrants are somehow better and more important than actual Americans and their children.
Even if GOP leaders shrugged off business pressure, any deal which endorses an amnesty is also risky for Republicans.
Voters know Ryan and other leaders have a long record of backing one-sided, pro-business amnesty bills in 2006, 2007 and 2013, and would distrust any promise to cut immigration levels.
But the fairness polls suggest — and so do leaders of some immigration-reform groups — that GOP voters will accept an amnesty if it actually provides clear benefits to Americans which cannot be snatched away by judges, agency officials or closed-door legislation.
Also, GOP legislators are losing ground every year because of the high level of immigration that has turned many solid GOP states into Democratic strongholds or swing-states.  California is lost to Democrats, so is Virginia, and Georgia is sliding in the same direction. That rising tide of immigrant votes has also super-charged identity politics in the Democratic Party, which makes it difficult for the GOP’s conservative or business-first wings to win support from second-generation or third-generation immigrants.
Immigration cutbacks might also raise enthusiasm among the GOP voters are increasingly angry at GOP legislators for failing to deliver Trump’s agenda, raise salaries or fund the border wall before the 2018 election — when Democratic voters passionately want revenge for their November 2016 humiliation.
If Ryan were to embrace the three-for-one plan, it would mark an unprecedented reversal of prior bipartisan policy, such as the 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty-and-cheap-labor bill which was chiefly authored by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Schumer’s 2013 bill greatly expanded the flow of government-dependent immigrants to put Democrats on a path to political dominance. The plan offered business a huge wave of wage-cutting, profit-boosting cheap labor if they lobbied Republicans to accept the amnesty. 
The plan almost worked — but House Speaker John Boehner blocked the bill amid intense public opposition, which culminated in the defenestration of then-House Majority Leader, the pro-amnesty Rep. Eric Cantor and his pro-amnesty aides, including the U.S. Chamber’s current chief policy officer.  Cantor was defeated by GOP primary voters in Virginia’s Seventh District, who also choose David Brat to replace him.
The public, and especially GOP voters, strongly oppose cheap-labor amnesties when they are asked to weigh benefits for migrants against fairness for Americans. In 2014, the public punished Schumer for his cheap-labor amnesty by giving nine Senate seats — and the majority — to the GOP.  The GOP voters then rubbed salt in Schumer’s political wounds by deporting pro-amnesty Jeb Bush back to Florida and sending electing Donald Trump to the White House. 
The questions facing GOP legislators now is whether they want to solve the immigration problem — and the make the GOP into the nation’s high-wage political party —by sidelining business demands, building public trust and dragging a few Democratic Senators into the “Yea” column.