THE DOCTRINE OF THE N.A.F.T.A. GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS IS TO SERVE THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS WITH ENDLESS WAVES OF INVADING 'CHEAP' LABOR SUBSIDIZED WITH WELFARE FUNDED BY TAXES ON MIDDLE AMERICA.
In many speeches, Mayorkas says he is building a mass migration system to deliver workers to wealthy employers and investors and “equity” to poor foreigners. The nation’s border laws are subordinate to elites’ opinion about “the values of our country,” Mayorkas claims.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
SENATORS DIANNE FEINSTEIN, KAMALA HARRIS and REP. NANCY PELOSI VOW TO DRAMATICALLY EXPAND THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE IN MEXIFORNIA
THE CLINTON JUDGE'S BIZARRE PRO-ILLEGAL ALIEN DECISION
Judicial activism crossed through the mirror in 2017. The flurry of Federal judges rushing to protect illegal Obama policies with bizarrely illegal rulings exceeds even the wildest abuses of the Warren court.
In San Francisco, Judge William Alsup, a Clinton judge, decided that President Trump has no right to set aside Obama's illegal DACA amnesty. Obama's DACA amnesty was a discretionary measure and an illegal one. But even if it were legal, the same discretion can be used to put it aside.
Furthermore, the DACA amnesty was shut down in response to rulings against it by Federal courts. And Judge Alsup uses that to argue that the termination was a mistake because DACA wasn't actually illegal.
The Alsup decision has some of the same bizarre features of previous judicial activist assaults on Trump. There are the cities and colleges who claim to be adversely affected. And there's a judge arguing about the administration's motives. And then he skips to arguing with the Attorney General over whether DACA was legal to begin with.
The argument is irrelevant because if DACA was within the authority of the administration, then so is setting it aside. If it wasn't, then it was never legal. But Judge Alsup insists that it's within an administration's authority to implement amnesty, but not to revoke it.
That's really showing off the partisan agenda here.
DACA Amnesty: What Is the DREAM Act, and What Would It Do?
Explaining the proposed amnesty for DACA recipients and the estimated $26 billion net cost
January 3, 2018 1:05 pmLast Updated: January 8, 2018 4:02 pm
People protest the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) outside the Capitol Building on Capitol Hill, Washington, on Dec. 6, 2017. (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON—The new year is expected to bring a frenzy of lobbying for the passage of the DREAM Act, or S.1615—effectively an amnesty for eligible illegal immigrants written into the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The bill was introduced to the Senate by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in July and has bipartisan support. The DREAM stands for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors.
Congress is under pressure to come up with a permanent fix for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients by March, after President Donald Trump rescinded the DACA program on Sept. 5.
DACA was introduced through an executive order by President Barack Obama in 2012 as a temporary measure that gave recipients renewable, two-year work authorization and deportation immunity.
“Now, let’s be clear, this is not amnesty, this is not immunity, this is not a path to citizenship—it’s not a permanent fix,” Obama said at the time.
The average age of a DACA recipient is 25, with the oldest around 37.
The DREAM Act goes further than providing permanent amnesty for DACA recipients, however. It would provide conditional lawful permanent resident (LPR, or green card) status to about 2 million of the country’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates.
Trump has expressed sympathy for DACA recipients, said last April, that they could “rest easy.”
On Sept. 7, he tweeted, “For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about – No action!”
In October, Trump presented his immigration priorities to Congress that would have to be implemented before an amnesty for DACA was considered. The priorities include a wall along the southern border, a shift to a merit-based immigration system, and increased interior enforcement.
Right before the new year, Trump reiterated his stance, tweeting: “The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our Country at all cost!”
A CBO report released on Dec. 15 has broken down the bill to show the numbers and estimated costs S.1615 would trigger.
What Does the DREAM Act Give?
The CBO estimates that 3.25 million illegal aliens meet the basic eligibility criteria, but, based on DACA application rates, about 2 million would apply and be approved.
“Their ages at the time they received the status would range from around 14 to the early 50s, with a median age in the late 20s,” the CBO report states. “The research indicates that the vast majority of conditional LPR recipients would be from Mexico or Central America.”
Applicants must meet the following criteria for conditional LPR status:
They must have had a continuous physical presence in the United States for the four years before the date of enactment;
They must have been under the age of 18 upon arrival in the United States;
They must not have violated any of a series of requirements related to crime and national security; and
They must hold at least a high school diploma or its equivalent, be enrolled in high school, or be participating in a program to prepare for a general educational development (GED) examination.
The current 700,000 recipients of DACA would be eligible.
So would children who are in the country illegally and meet the bill’s requirements, but are too young to start high school. They would be protected from removal until they enter high school and become eligible to apply for the conditional LPR status.
The bill also does not place an upper age limit on applicants, which DACA did (at 31 years).
Pathway to Citizenship
Recipients would be expected to work toward removing the conditional part of the LPR and apply for naturalized citizenship within eight years.
The CBO estimates that of the 2 million initial recipients of conditional LPR, roughly 1.6 million would be granted unconditional LPR status during the 2018 to 2027 period. Unconditional LPR opens the pathway to full citizenship.
A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) supervisor reviews citizenship applications in the Dallas Field Office in Irving, Texas, on Aug. 22, 2016. The USCIS processes millions of green card and U.S. citizenship applications every year. (John Moore/Getty Images)
“Roughly 1 million of the 1.6 million people receiving unconditional LPR status would become naturalized U.S. citizens during the 2018 to 2027 period, and that a substantial number of people would naturalize in the following decades,” the CBO estimates.
“Naturalization primarily affects the federal budget by allowing new citizens to sponsor some of their relatives for LPR status in categories that are not subject to annual numerical caps.”
To be eligible for citizenship, people would have to meet several criteria, including at least one of the following:
They must have completed a postsecondary program of education or at least two years toward a four-year degree;
They must have completed at least two years of honorable service in the uniformed services;
They must have maintained lawful employment for at least three years and at least 75 percent of the time during which they had valid employment authorization; or
They must have received a waiver from satisfying those requirements because of disability or child care responsibilities or because their removal would cause extreme hardship to an immediate relative who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Under the bill, people who fail to advance beyond the conditional basis of LPR status within eight years would lose eligibility altogether and revert to their prior immigrationstatus.
The CBO estimates that most people would gain citizenship through meeting the work criteria.
Breakdown of DACA
The average age of a DACA recipient is 25, with the oldest around 37.
Only a few randomly selected DACA recipients were vetted through background checks during the original intake, and more than 2,100 recipients have since had their eligibility rescinded due to criminal convictions and gang activity, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
DACA recipients are not required to speak English and the application form has space for a translator.
The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only ‘basic’ English ability.”
Congress is under pressure to come up with a permanent fix for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients by March.
By the end of July, 820 DACA recipients had served in the military, according to DHS.
Immigration expert and retired senior special agent of the former INS Michael Cutler said DACA recipients “hit the jackpot,” but now the party’s over.
“We can’t keep on incentivizing illegal immigration and wonder why illegal aliens keep showing up,” he said.
The age cutoff for filing an application for DACA was 31 as of 2012, and Cutler is concerned about fraud. “Because there were no interviews and no field investigations, it is possible for illegal aliens who entered the United States well past their 16th birthdays to be able to game this process,” he said.
How Much Would Amnesty Cost?
The CBO estimates that the DREAM Act would generate a net cost of $26 billion over the next 10 years—assuming only 2 million of the 3.1 million eligible aliens sign up for it.
Most DACA recipients currently pay most taxes, but cannot receive most federal benefits. The DREAM Act would generate about $1 billion in extra tax revenue, but recipients would receive about $27 billion in new benefits, such as Obamacare subsidies, child tax credits, Medicaid, and food stamps.
The CBO estimates exclude state and local government budget impacts.
Sparking Chain Migration
Like other amnesties before it, a DACA amnesty would inevitably create a new surge of chain migration, according to Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
“This is because the vast majority of the DACA beneficiaries originally arrived with their parents, and these parents plus any siblings typically are still living in the United States illegally,” Vaughan wrote on Sept. 27. “It is reasonable to assume that the DACA amnesty grantees would seek to sponsor their parents and non-citizen siblings at the earliest opportunity—which would be as soon as they obtain citizenship, under current rules.”
Most DACA recipients are from Mexico, which also has one of the highest rates of chain migration. In the most recent five-year cohort of immigrants studied (1996 to 2000), each new Mexican immigrant sponsored 6.38 additional legal immigrants, according to a CIS report.
The CBO doesn’t account for chain migration in its estimates. But an amnesty for the almost 700,000 DACA recipients would likely skyrocket once chain migration is factored in.
Where the Act Currently Sits
The DREAM Act was introduced to the Senate by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), on July 20, 2017, where it was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Three senators originally co-sponsored the bill, and seven more have since joined.
Original Co-sponsorsSen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Additional Co-sponsorsSen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.)Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
ICE Sending More Agents to Sanctuary State California
Justice Department exploring ‘any and all potential options’ for holding sanctuary jurisdictions accountable
January 3, 2018 12:43 pmLast Updated: January 7, 2018 10:41 am
ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan at a press conference about immigration enforcement and border security, in Washington on Dec. 5, 2017. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON—California officially became a sanctuary state on Jan. 1, meaning local and state law enforcement are restricted in cooperating with immigration agents, even within jails.
California is the first state to pass such sweeping legislation that shields illegal aliens from immigration enforcement, although at least 300 cities and counties across the country have similar policies.
Most sanctuary policies come under fire because they allow for criminal illegal aliens to be released into communities instead of being handed over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation proceedings.
Gov. Jerry Brown signed the sanctuary law, SB-54, in October, saying the bill “strikes a balance that will protect public safety, while bringing a measure of comfort to those families who are now living in fear every day.”
California Gov. Jerry Brown at a news conference in Sacramento, Calif., on May 11, 2017. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
But ICE Deputy Director Tom Homan said that making California a sanctuary state is a foolish decision.
“I think it’s terrible. I mean you’ve got the state of California that wants to put politics above public safety, ahead of officer safety,” Homan said during a Fox News interview on Jan. 2.
“If he [Brown] thinks he’s protecting immigrant communities, he’s doing quite the opposite. Because if you think ICE is going away, we’re not. There’s no sanctuary from federal law enforcement.
“California better hold on tight—they’re about to see a lot more special agents, a lot more deportation officers in the state of California,” Homan said. “If the politicians in California don’t want to protect their communities, then ICE will.”
An official at ICE said the department can’t provide specific details about the added numbers due to security reasons. However, the official confirmed that uncooperative jurisdictions have a higher rate of criminal alien releases than in places that honor ICE detainers.
“As a result, ICE is forced to focus additional resources to conduct at-large arrests in the field in these non-cooperative areas,” the official stated via email.
There’s no sanctuary from federal law enforcement.
— Tom Homan, deputy director, ICE
Homan said he is working with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ascertain if California is violating alien smuggling and harboring statute 8 U.S. Code 1324, or any other laws.
The statute, in part, states that a person is in violation of the law if he or she is “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.”
An official from the DOJ confirmed the department is working with ICE to “explore any and all potential options for holding sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for their dangerous practices.”
“Together, we will use every legally viable tool at our disposal to protect the American people from dangerous criminal aliens and from the people that place their protection over the protection of law-abiding citizens,” the official said.
Homan said he wants to see the politicians personally held accountable for people dying at the hands of criminal illegal aliens due to sanctuary policies.
“In Sonoma County a few weeks ago, an illegal alien was arrested, we put a detainer on him, he was arrested for domestic violence. Sonoma County didn’t honor the detainer, what happened? Two weeks later, he killed that girl. Now she has two young daughters without a mother,” Homan said on Fox.
“I can give example after example of the effect this law is going to have on the community safety in the state of California.”
Homan said that as of July 31 last year, almost 10,000 criminal aliens who were released onto the streets nationwide—rather than being turned over to ICE—have committed another crime.
He warned that the sanctuary status will attract more illegal aliens to California. “More criminal aliens will be coming to California. So California just bit off a lot more than it can chew,” he said.
Nearly one quarter (more than 2 million) of the country’s estimated illegal alien population lives in California, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent detains a convicted criminal alien in Los Angeles, Calif., on Oct. 14, 2015. (John Moore/Getty Images)
More About California’s Sanctuary Law
SB-54 forbids local law enforcement to communicate with immigration officials about when a criminal is about to be released from custody, except under special circumstances.
It also prevents local jails from holding inmates for up to 48 hours longer when ICE makes a request for transfer—except for inmates who have committed certain violent crimes, such as murder, robbery, rape, or kidnapping.
Nationwide, in fiscal 2016, under the Obama administration, the number of wanted illegal aliens handed over to federal authorities from detention facilities plummeted to less than 3 percent of what it was six years prior.
SB-54 bans state and local law enforcement officers from asking the immigration status of anyone during a routine stop, and they are prohibited from arresting illegal aliens based on civil immigration warrants.
The bill also prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources—including facilities, equipment, and personnel—for immigration enforcement purposes without a court warrant.
Violators could be subject to civil action, according to state Senate president and author of the bill Kevin de León.
THE MURDEROUS MEXICANS….
Everyday there are 12 Americans murdered and 8 children molested by Mexicans!
Steinle’s murderer, Jose Zarate and been deported 5xs!
"While walking with her father on a pier in San Francisco in 2015, Steinle was shot by the illegal alien. Steinle pleaded with her father to not let her die, but she soon passed in her father’s arms."
Adios, Sanctuary La Raza Welfare State of California A fifth-generation Californian laments his state’s ongoing economic collapse. By Steve Baldwin American Spectator, October 19, 2017 What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs. Liberals claim they more than make that up with taxes paid, but that’s simply not true. It’s not even close. FAIR estimates illegal aliens in California contribute only $1.21 billion in tax revenue, which means they cost California $20.6 billion, or at least $1,800 per household. Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming. Furthermore, the complexion of illegal aliens has changed with far more on welfare and committing crimes than those who entered the country in the 1980s. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has testified before a Congressional committee that in 2004, 95% of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens; in 2000, 23% of all Los Angeles County jail inmates were illegal aliens and that in 1995, 60% of Los Angeles’s largest street gang, the 18th Street gang, were illegal aliens. Granted, those statistics are old, but if you talk to any California law enforcement officer, they will tell you it’s much worse today. The problem is that the Brown administration will not release any statewide data on illegal alien crimes. That would be insensitive. And now that California has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” there is little doubt this sends a message south of the border that will further escalate illegal immigration into the state.
"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the US Senate, there is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement will emerge. Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant civil rights and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new political party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow and that is to elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan." Indeed, California goes out of its way to attract illegal aliens. The state has even created government programs that cater exclusively to illegal aliens. For example, the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offices that only process driver licenses for illegal aliens. With over a million illegal aliens now driving in California, the state felt compelled to help them avoid the long lines the rest of us must endure at the DMV. And just recently, the state-funded University of California system announced it will spend $27 million on financial aid for illegal aliens. They’ve even taken out radio spots on stations all along the border, just to make sure other potential illegal border crossers hear about this program. I can’t afford college education for all my four sons, but my taxes will pay for illegals to get a college education.
The number of illegal aliens apprehended and determined to be inadmissible along the southwest border with Mexico rose again in December. The figures exceed those under President Barrack Obama in the months leading up to the surge of unaccompanied minors and families in 2014. The number of families apprehended in December 2017 rose 15 percent over the previous month.
After falling to historically low rates in March and April 2017, the number of apprehensions began rising for seven consecutive months. In December 2017, U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended nearly 30,000 between the ports of entry, according to a report published by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Tuesday morning.
The number of apprehensions is lower than one year ago when migrants rushed ahead of the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Breitbart Texas reported. In December 2016, agents apprehended 43,375 who crossed the border illegally. In 2017, that number fell to 28,996.
In June 2014, Breitbart Texas’ Brandon Darby published a series of photographs from the federal government, showing massive numbers of unaccompanied minors being warehoused in shoddy detention facilities. The revelation of these images swept across the globe and arguably changed the political discussion of border security in America.
In December 2013, the number of migrants apprehended and determined to be inadmissible rose to 36,695. In the months leading up to the June 2014 report, those numbers would increase to 66,541. That number in December 2017 rose to 40,513, an increase of 3,818 over the same month in 2013.
The number of apprehensions in December 2017 fell slightly compared to the previous month. Agents apprehended 29,082 in November. The December apprehensions reflect a 0.3 percent decrease from the prior month.
However, the numbers of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and Family Unit Aliens (FMUA) continue to rise. UAC apprehensions rose from 3,990 in November to 4,083 in December. FMUA apprehensions rose from 7,015 to 8,121 over the same period.
“The general consensus among border patrol and other experts is that the numbers have rebounded because of the court-imposed catch and release policy, whereby a rogue federal judge decided that all illegally arriving minors have to be released, even if they are with their parents,” Center for Immigration Studies Policy Director Jessica Vaughan told Breitbart Texas on Tuesday.
Vaughan added:
Basically, the smugglers have figured out that illegal crossers with kids will be detained briefly and then allowed to stay indefinitely, whether they try to claim asylum or just join the larger illegal population. It’s a great service to sell, and there’s a huge market, and so they keep getting richer off of this illicit trade, until Congress steps in or until the Trump administration figures out a way around this problem. But the cost to American communities that have to accommodate these new arrivals is getting to be astronomical – not only the cost for schools, health care and welfare services, but also the cost in public safety, because MS-13 and other gangs have figured out how to game the system too. They have boosted their numbers and gone on a crime and killing spree that is unprecedented in places where they are settling.
The Rio Grande Valley in South Texas continues to lead the eight other sectors of the southwestern border with Mexico in terms of the apprehension of UACs and FMUAs. The sector accounts for 46 and 61 percent respectively of the number of apprehensions in Fiscal Year 2018 year-to-date figures.
The UACs are reported to be coming from Guatemala (5,697), Mexico (2,433), Honduras (1,740), and El Salvador (993). Guatemala also leads the list of countries sending FMUAs to the U.S. with 10,650 in the first three months of FY2018. This is followed by Honduras (5,545), El Salvador (3,136), and Mexico (481).
The increase in family apprehensions in December came as the Trump Administration discussed the implementation of a policy to protect these children being put in danger by their family members, Breitbart Texas reported.
“It’s cruel for parents to place the lives of their children in the hands of transnational criminal organizations and smugglers who have zero respect for human life and often abuse or abandon children,” Acting DHS Press Secretary Tyler Houlton said in a written statement in December. She explained the administration is committed to exploring “all possible measures” to protect children.
Vaughan explained, “in the absence of Congressional action to supersede the court, ICE seems to think it has no choice but to start cracking down on this practice. Separating the children from their parents is not ideal, but we have to remember that this is a choice the parents have made, it’s part of a criminal enterprise, and the alternative of simply releasing the kids has been a disaster for American communities.”
“Those who find this objectionable should get behind the legislation pending from the House Judiciary Committee that would give the government more flexibility to handle the problem in a way that is more appropriate and will be more effective,” she stated.
Breitbart Texas has reported frequently on children and minors who are abandoned by their smugglers and left to die in the fields of South Texas and deserts of southern Arizona.
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX, Gab, and Facebook.
Donald Trump Calls for DACA Amnesty ‘Bill of Love’ and Wall Funding: ‘You Need the Wall’
President Donald Trump called for a DACA amnesty “Bill of Love” during a meeting Tuesday with congressional Republicans and Democrats at the White House.
“This should be a bill of love, truly. It should be a bill of love, and we can do that,” Trump said.
“I really do believe Democrat and Republican, the people sitting in this room, really want to get something done,” Trump said, adding that he was looking for a “bill of love” from Congress.
Trump spoke at length to the bipartisan meeting, urging them forward on offering legalization for DACA recipients but also ending chain migration and visa lottery systems, as well as demanding border security.
The president spoke to reporters with Sen. Dick Durbin on his right and House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer on his left. Other members of Congress included pro-amnesty leader Sen. Dianne Feinstein and immigration hawk Sen. Tom Cotton. Other Republican amnesty supporters like Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake joined the meeting.
Trump said that if Congress could come together on a DACA deal, he would be happy to sign it — even if he had compromises that he didn’t like.
“I am very much reliant on the people in this room,” Trump said. “I have great confidence … if they come to me with things I’m not in love with, I’m going to do it, because I respect them.”
Hoyer said that Republicans were to blame for failing to bring the Senate “Gang of Eight” immigration reform bill into a vote in the house.
Trump said he was eager to pass comprehensive immigration reform, but that it should be done in “steps.” DACA, he said, was the first step.
The group of about two dozen members of Congress met in the Cabinet Room of the White House with Trump and White House chief of staff General John Kelly, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and advisors Stephen Miller and Marc Short.
Trump announced that Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary Bob Goodlatte would introduce a bill in the House featuring his border security priorities and that it would make it’s way to passing into the Senate.
“This has been going on for years,” Trump said, joking that if they could not make progress on the issue he would “lock the doors” of the White House to end the discussion.
He said he personally felt that it should be easy for Republicans and Democrats to come together on the DACA issue and immigration reform.
“I really think this sells itself,” Trump said.
At one point, Trump approved of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s call for Congress to support comprehensive immigration reform.
“If you want to take it that further step, I’ll take the heat,” Trump said. “You are not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform.”
When asked if he would support a DACA deal without wall funding, he replied, “You need it. … I’d love not to build the wall, but you need the wall.”
He clarified that he didn’t need a wall on the entire border, citing specific advice from border security agents.
“We don’t need a 2,000-mile wall where you have rivers and mountains, and everything else protecting, but we do need a wall for a fairly good portion,” Trump said.
YOU WILL NOT HEAR OUT OF LA RAZA NANCY'S FAT MOUTH THAT HALF THE MURDERS IN MEXIFORNIA ARE BY MEX GANGS OR THAT 93% OF ALL MURDERS IN MEX-OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES ARE BY MEXICANS! STAGNANT WAGES and the Dem Party’s obsession with open borders, amnesty and no damned legal need apply!
THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY PARTY for OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY, NON-ENFORCEMENT, NO E-VERIFY and no Legal need apply!!!
The Democratic Party used to be the party of blue collar America- supporting laws and policies that benefited that segment of the U.S. population. Their leaders may still claim to be advocates for American working families, however their duplicitous actions that betray American workers and their families, while undermining national security and public safety, provide clear and incontrovertible evidence of their lies…. MICHAEL CUTLER …FRONTPAGE mag
Washington, D.C. (January 9, 2018) – As the termination date for the unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program approaches, congressional leaders continue to look for a resolution. Any resolution must take into account the cost of an amnesty for this generally low-education, low-skilled population. Dr. Steven Camarota, CIS director of research, discusses the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, which estimated a cost of $26 billion for a "Dreamer" amnesty.
“Our entire crony
capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy
approaching par with third-world hell-holes. This is the way a great
country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan THEAMERICAN
THINKER.com
Feb 28, 2006 - Dianne Feinstein and
her husband are also making tons of money off the ... It's a disgusting display
of war profiteering, and just like Cheney,
the ...
Apr 22, 2003 - URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and
engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne
Feinstein's husband, landed an Army ...
Apr 27, 2003 - When it comes to scoring
mega-military-related contracts, Sen. Dianne Feinstein's
multimillionaire husband, Richard Blum, is right in the thick ...
A war profiteer is any person or
organization that profits from warfare or by selling weapons and .... The
Center for Public Integrity has reported that US Senator Dianne
Feinstein, who voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, and her
husband, ...
Apr 28, 2010 - Dianne Feinstein—the
ninth wealthiest member of congress—has been ... With Blum's financial backing,
Klein, a war contractor, operates a ...
Dianne Feinstein: War
profiteer and war criminal. by Gerry Bello. July 5, 2013. Somewhere
in northwest Pakistan Tuesday a sound was heard. Hellfire missiles ...
Sep 25, 2015 - But none of that seems to matter to Dianne
Feinstein and her war-profiteering husband,
Richard Blum. Not only is Blum demanding adoption of ...
Mar 28, 2007 - Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate
Military Construction Appropriations ...
Apr 5, 2007 - Democratic Senator Dianne
Feinstein of California silently resigned from her post on the
Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee ...
Senator Feinstein's War
Profiteering
by
Joshua Frank
It happens
all the time. If the antiwar movement takes on the Democrats for their bitter
shortcomings, a few liberals are bound to criticize us for not hounding Bush
instead. It doesn't even have to be an election year to get the progressives
fired up. They just don't seem to get it. "How can you attack the
Democrats when we have such a bulletproof administration ruling the roost in
Washington?" somebody recently e-mailed me. "Don't you have
something better to do than write this trash?!"
Well, not really. It's too cold in upstate New York
right now to do anything other than fume over the liberal villains in
Washington. "Why do I write about the putrid Democratic Party?" I
responded, "I'll tell you, there's a reason this Republican administration
is so damn bulletproof – nobody from the opposition party is taking aim and
pulling the trigger."
And that's why the Dems are just as culpable in all
that has transpired since Bush took office in 2000. They aren't just a part
of the problem – the Democrats are the problem.
I mean, who is really all that surprised Bush and
his boys wanted to conquer the Middle East? Not me. That's just what unreasonable neocons
do: they stomp out the little guy, kill off the weak, and suffocate the
voiceless. They only care about the girth of their wallets and the number of
scalps they can tack above their mantles.
The Democrats aren't just letting the Republicans
get away with murder, however: some of them are also reaping the benefits of
the Bush wars. We constantly hear about Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton and
how his ex-company is making bundles off U.S. contracts in Iraq. But what we
don't hear about is how Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband are
also making tons of money off the "war on terror."
The wishy-washy senator now claims Bush misled her
prior to the invasion of Iraq. I don't think she's being honest with us,
though. There may have been other reasons she helped sell Bush's lies.
According to the Center for Public Integrity, Feinstein's husband Richard Blum has racked in
millions of dollars from Perini, a civil infrastructure construction company, of
which the billionaire investor wields a 75 percent voting share.
In April 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave
$500 million to Perini to provide services for Iraq's Central Command.
A month earlier in March 2003, Perini was awarded $25 million to
design and construct a facility to support the Afghan National Army near
Kabul. And in March 2004, Perini was awarded a hefty contract worth up to
$500 million for "electrical power distribution and transmission"
in southern Iraq.
A war profiteer is any person or
organization that profits from warfare or
by selling weapons and
other goods to parties at war. The term can have strong, negative connotations.
General profiteering may also occur in peace time. An example of war profiteers
were the "shoddy"
millionaires who allegedly
sold recycled wool and cardboard shoes to soldiers during the American Civil War. The ten highest war profiteers are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company EADS, Finmeccanica, L-3 Communications, and United Technologies.[1] These corporations are all directly connected with
production of weapons, machinery, vehicles, aircraft, electronics and
artillery(including missiles) and as such have significant political influence
given their lobbying efforts and campaign contributions to members of the
United States Congress in the promotion of war efforts. In 2010, the defense
industry spent $144 million on lobbying and donated over $22.6 million to
congressional candidates.[2]
Indicted defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes was reported to be ecstatic when hearing that the
United States was going to go to war with Iraq. "He and some of his top
executives were really gung-ho about the war," said a former employee.
"Brent said this would create new opportunities for the company. He was
really excited about doing business in the Middle East."[28]
The War Profiteering Prevention Act
of 2007 intended to create criminal penalties for war profiteers and
others who exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the
world.[29] This act was introduced first on April 25, 2007,
but was never enacted into law.[30] War profiteering cases are often brought under the
Civil False Claims Act, which was enacted in 1863 to combat war profiteering
during the Civil War.[31]
Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, criticized war profiteering of US companies
during World War I in War Is a Racket. He wrote about how some companies and corporations
increase their earnings and profits by up to 1,700 percent and how many
companies willingly sold equipment and supplies to the US that had no relevant
use in the war effort. In the book, Butler stated that "It has been estimated
by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle
Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual
war period. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits."[32]
In the American Civil War, concerns about
war profiteering were not limited to the activities of a few "shoddy"
millionaires in the North. In the Confederacy, where supplies were severely limited, and hardships
common, the mere suggestion of profiteering was considered a scurrilous charge.
Georgia Quartermaster General Ira Roe Foster attempted to increase the supply of material to the
troops by urging the women of his state to knit 50,000 pairs of socks. Foster's
sock campaign stimulated the supply of the much needed item, but it also met
with a certain amount of suspicion and backlash. Either the result of a Union disinformation campaign, or the work of suspicious minds, rumors,
which Foster denied as a "malicious falsehood!",[33] began to spread that Foster and others were
profiteering from the socks.[33] It was alleged that contributed socks were being
sold, rather than given freely to the troops. The charge was not without
precedent. The historian Jeanie Attie notes that in 1861, an "especially
damaging rumor" (later found to be true) had circulated in the North,
alleging that the Union Army had purchased 5,000 pairs of socks which had been
donated, and intended for the troops, from a private relief agency, the United
States Sanitary Commission.[34] As the Sanitary Commission had done in the North,
Foster undertook a propaganda campaign in Georgia newspapers to combat the damaging
rumors and to encourage the continued contribution of socks.[35] He offered $1,000.00 to any "citizen or
soldier who will come forward and prove that he ever bought a sock from this
Department that was either knit by the ladies or purchased for issue to said
troops."[33]
Unacceptable!
Senator Profits from War and Post Office
Shortly after San Francisco's then-Mayor
Dianne Feinstein married private equity financier Richard C. Blum in 1980,
those who knew them called theirs "a marriage of the public and private
sectors."
Although Feinstein lost a gubernatorial bid to Republican Pete Wilson, she soon
took his seat in the U.S. Senate. Working across the aisle, her power rapidly
grew along with her husband's diversified investments and their mutual wealth.1
• As Chair and ranking member of the Military
Construction and Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein appears to have
steered contracts to companies controlled by her husband.2 Blum has profited handsomely from military
contracts.3
• In 2009, Senator Feinstein introduced
legislation to provide $25 billion in taxpayer money to the FDIC after it gave
Blum's CBRE real estate company a contract to sell foreclosed properties at
unusually high rates.4
• As a Regent of the University of California,
Blum appears to have profited from contracts with the UC-run nuclear weapons laboratory
at Los Alamos.5
• In the summer of 2012, the U.S. Postal Service
awarded Blum's CBRE company the exclusive contract to sell its portfolio of
public properties. Feinstein's office denies any influence in the awarding of
the contract.6
Ask your Senators to request an Ethics Committee
investigation of Senator Dianne Feinstein now.
Judicial activism crossed through the mirror in 2017. The flurry of Federal judges rushing to protect illegal Obama policies with bizarrely illegal rulings exceeds even the wildest abuses of the Warren court.
In San Francisco, Judge William Alsup, a Clinton judge, decided that President Trump has no right to set aside Obama's illegal DACA amnesty. Obama's DACA amnesty was a discretionary measure and an illegal one. But even if it were legal, the same discretion can be used to put it aside.
Furthermore, the DACA amnesty was shut down in response to rulings against it by Federal courts. And Judge Alsup uses that to argue that the termination was a mistake because DACA wasn't actually illegal.
The Alsup decision has some of the same bizarre features of previous judicial activist assaults on Trump. There are the cities and colleges who claim to be adversely affected. And there's a judge arguing about the administration's motives. And then he skips to arguing with the Attorney General over whether DACA was legal to begin with.
The argument is irrelevant because if DACA was within the authority of the administration, then so is setting it aside. If it wasn't, then it was never legal. But Judge Alsup insists that it's within an administration's authority to implement amnesty, but not to revoke it.
That's really showing off the partisan agenda here.
DACA Amnesty: What Is the DREAM Act, and What Would It Do?
No comments:
Post a Comment