When Biden took office, one of his first acts was the elimination of our border security. Like a power-hungry dictator, Biden simply decided to ignore our immigration laws. His catastrophic border policy resulted in untold millions of unidentified foreign citizens from around the world pouring into our country. Its impact is now being felt in cities across the country. The worst is yet to come. PETER LEMISKA - AND WE'RE ALREADY THERE!!!
The biggest news from the Trump universe last month was without a doubt his alleged "s-hole" comment. Media coverage was fixated on whether something offensive was said, but who cares?
Instead, we should be focusing on the immigration catastrophe that Trump was alluding to and how it will lead to creating more Democrats. Trump won for a reason: he states, albeit brashly, what is on the minds of many Americans. His comment on the quality and quantity of immigration to America was not at all different. Based on a Harvard-Harris survey, 79% of Americans favor a merit-based system over relative-based, and 68% of Americans are also against the Visa Lottery, a system that randomly picks 50,000 people to enter the U.S. in the name of multiculturalism.
Trump was finally able to articulate his hopes of ending chain and relative-based migration and the Visa Lottery in his latest State of the Union address. His original campaign promise of building of a new border wall would also go a long way in preventing undesirable immigrants from entering the country. This video from Prager University illustrates why it is important.
· Seventy-three percent of Central American and Mexican, 51% of Caribbean, 48% of African, and 26% of European immigrants, both new and settled, use some form of welfare assistance. Of the native population, 30% is on some form of welfare.
· Regardless of the level of education, immigrants across the board had higher rates of welfare dependency. Clearly, the institutions at which they trained and studied are not preparing them for the American workforce.
· Twenty-seven point seven percent of the foreign-born population has no high school diploma compared to 9.3% of the native population.
· Several cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Miami are between 28% and 38.5% foreign-born, with a majority of this population concentrated within communities of the same national identity. This, without a doubt, makes it harder for new immigrants to integrate and assimilate into American culture and society. This division is what the Democrats prey on for votes.
If America's immigration system is to be based on merit, then Trump is correct in stating that too many immigrants are coming from "s-hole" nations that do not prepare them to compete in the American system.
It is also known that increased labor mobility with the developing world leads to a convergence of wages. This can reduce the standard of living for Americans (increased hours and lower salaries). Congress's own commissioned report found that H-1B workers "received lower wages, less senior job titles, smaller signing bonuses and smaller pay and compensation increases than would be typical for the work they actually did."
The majority of these immigrants are also under 35, making it difficult for the youth of America to enter the job market and making it less desirable to hire older Americans for lower level jobs. It is also reported that many are being overlooked for casual work in Hispanic neighborhoods for not being bilingual. This discrimination further hurts youth employment and poverty levels for non-Spanish-speakers. It's easy for these disenchanted people to blame the capitalist system and become Democrats.
Trump was not off the mark if he was in fact complaining about America welcoming too many immigrants from "s-hole" countries. It is clear that America has an issue with accepting immigrants who cannot sustain themselves. They are concentrated in only a few cities, where they struggle to assimilate and are used for cheap labor. Building a wall, revoking the Visa Lottery, and tightening relative-based migration to spouses and children only would go a long way in ensuring that America stays in the First World.
This is an issue that the Republicans must fight for while they still have control, as every immigrant on welfare is another vote for the Democrats.
DEATH BY CORRUPTION:
What caused the destruction of the Democrat Party in America?
There isn't much room in today's Democratic Party for independent thought or moderate positions. Whether it's about the right of a fetus to live versus the right of a woman to choose, the inherent rights of American citizens versus the perceived rights of illegal aliens, or religious freedom and traditional values versus another new category of people seeking special protection, Democrats are of one mind. They all stand together on the far left, a place where dissent is never tolerated. Like clichéd characters in a science fiction movie, they appear to be individual organisms, but their minds seem to be linked to some enormous, pulsating brain deep within the bowels of the Democratic National Committee.
Nothing unites Democrats more than their loathing of one man and their disdain for the American voters who elected him. Donald Trump has succeeded in undoing much of the legacy left us by his leftist predecessor. And he's not done undoing. So it's easy to understand how the Democrats' boundless love for Barack Obama would translate into mindless hatred for Donald Trump.
They call it "political opposition," but the nonstop venom spewing from liberal politicians and the media, Hollywood, and academia represents something much more dangerous to our republic than healthy political opposition.
One of the more recent examples came from Barry Bluestone, a Northeastern University professor, who said of Trump during a public lecture, "Sometimes, I want to just see him impeached. Other times, quite honestly ... I wouldn't mind seeing him dead."
After his remarks made national news, he apologized, while explaining that "This president has created such deep division in the country."
Blinded by their own hatred, liberals can't see that they, not Donald Trump, are responsible for the deep division in the country. Whatever Trump's flaws, those things that he stands for were never considered divisive in the past. Republicans and Democrats alike once stood together for personal responsibility, religious freedom, national pride, border security, and prosperity for all. And they all stood for the National Anthem.
The emotional divide in this country – the polarization of America – long predates Trump and was seriously aggravated during Obama's administration, something that, many would argue, was deliberate and calculated for political reasons. After all, the writings of another leftist community organizer, Saul Alinsky, were well known to Barack Obama. The 13th of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is "Pick the target. Freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Even those who dismiss the Obama-Alinsky connection instinctively know that America's divide expanded dramatically during the Obama administration. A Gallup Poll conducted at the end of Obama's term confirms that fact, showing that a record-high 77 percent of Americans that year viewed the country as divided. That growing divide during the Obama years is graphically depicted in a chart published by Gallup in November 2016.
Immediately after Trump's election, apoplectic Obama loyalists embarked on an odyssey of opposition, a pilgrimage of protest, and they still haven't come back. They fully understand that if this president fails, the country fails, but that doesn't seem to bother them. They are determined to oversee his downfall.
Their dour demeanor and deadpan expressions throughout Trump's State of the Union address last month showed that their contempt today is just as intense as it was during his inauguration. When Trump referenced the more than two million new jobs created and rising wages, he drew not a hint of approval from Democrats. When he addressed our national security and the threat from North Korea, Democrats showed no signs of support then, nor when he talked about restoring the bonds of trust between our citizens and their government. Even when he took a moment to recognize those American victims of illegal alien gangs and talked about pride in our national anthem, the catatonic response from Democrats showed that their hatred of the president is more intense than any affinity they might have had for those values that made American great.
It also offered a glimpse into their plans for the future – blind opposition to the president and continued division for the country.
Peter Lemiska is a military veteran and retired senior special agent of the U.S. Secret Service. His opinion pieces regularly appear on renewamerica.com and other conservative sites.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and the RISE OF THE MEXICAN FASCIST WELFARE STATE and MEX FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA “The Race” NOW CALLING ITSELF UNIDOus.
Not long ago, both Democrats and Republicans advocated safe, secure borders and an immigration policy of admitting immigrants who benefit, not burden, Americans. Que pasó? ….. LARRY ELDER – FRONT PAGE MAG
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S VISION OF AMERICA:
49 MORE MEXIFORNIAS
…. How many illegals are occupying and looting your state now?
"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."
LA made $1.3B in illegal immigrant welfare payouts in just 2 years
The Democratic Party’s allies in the AFL-CIO’s unions are pressuring unions and companies to protect illegal-alien migrant employees from deportation, effectively converting the pro-worker unions into wage-cutting front-groups for employers.
The conversion is described by the New York Daily News, which showed how progressive lawyers train local Teamster union leaders to negotiate workplace contracts which minimize employers’ cooperation with immigration enforcement agencies. The article says:
At a Wednesday class, funded by the Consortium for Worker Education, Mike Spinelli of Local 553 listened carefully as trainer Luba Cortés walked everyone through the difference between an administrative warrant and a judicial one. …
Spinelli paid particular attention because many of his members — immigrants who work at a Long Island dairy farm — were profoundly shaken when federal [immigration enforcement] agents raided nearly 100 7-Eleven stores last month in a search for undocumented workers.
“We deliver all the dairy to all the 7-Eleven stores in the city — you can imagine how scared some of these guys are,” he said. “It’s a scary time in general, and we’re hoping this can help the workers feel prepared and help protect them — and also so employers know they don’t have to just roll over.”
Unions once existed to push up workers’ wages by denying employers the ability to hire other people from outside the picket line.
However, since before 2008, unions have been enrolling illegal migrants who illegally crossed the line between the United States and other countries.
Since at least 2013, top union leaders are also working with the Democratic Party preserve the inflow of migrants across the line because migrants are likely to support the party — even though the additional migrants allow employers to pay lower wages to Americans. That changes came when President Barck Obama and his progressive allies pressured AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka to reverse the unions’ traditional hostility to wage-cutting illegal immigration.
The Daily News article showed how progressive lawyers are now trying to insert illegal-friendly, enforcement-hostile clauses in union-employer contracts. The article quotes Richard Blum, a lawyer with the pro-migration Legal Aid Society, describing a negotiating guide supplied by the AFL-CIO:
“Some laws require an employer to do X — and the union can get language in a contract that says they will do X but nothing more,” Blum told The News. “Unions can also bargain for notification when something is happening so they can offer help or possibly intervene, or for a guarantee that if a worker is required to get more paperwork, they be given the maximum time available, and returned with full seniority. Or if they can’t return, they get severance, things like that.”
President Donald Trump reportedly won a respectable share of union votes in the 2016 election partly because he promised to protect Americans from employers who hire cheap-labor migrants after they cross the line. A March 2016 interview by the National Public Radio with Teamsters member Antonio Caracciolo reported:
CARACCIOLO: Well, you know, in the Home Depots in Long Island and New York City, the immigrants hang out there for day labor. And when they – they chased them out of Alabama. They don’t hang out there as much anymore. And know the state of Arizona and Alabama, where they were challenging people for citizenship, the illegal immigrants left the states. The jobs become more available. When there’s less people, there’s other jobs available. The employers who were employing those illegal immigrants, they have to turn to more-skilled workers. As less people are available for the workforce, the individuals who are hiring have to pay more.
The New York Daily News reports that the Teamsters’ membership now includes “airlines [employees], truckers, dairy farmers and more — [and] also has a sizable share of immigrant workers, roughly a third, 40,000.”
Companies want more imported workers because the nation’s formal unemployment rate is low. Without a reserve army of unemployed people, companies are forced to compete for new workers by offering higher wages, bonuses and training opportunities. For example, a new chart shows that annual wage growth (including inflation) rises above 2 percent once the “prime age non-employment rate” drops below 23 percent.
Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.
But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting roughly 1.1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.
plan would provide citizenship to at least 1.8 million
illegals — but would not allow any beneficial reduction in
cheap-labor immigration until 2027." NEIL MUNRO
“Illegal aliens are not supposed to work, and knowingly providing shelter for illegal aliens can be construed as harboring and shielding, elements of a felony under federal law, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324.”
“Where aliens and jobs are concerned, even many categories of non-immigrant aliens (temporary visitors) including aliens who lawfully enter under the Visa Waiver Program or with tourist visas may not work in the United States and immediately become subject to removal (deportation) if they seek gainful employment.” ----MICHAEL CUTLER – FRONTPAGE mag
When President Obama's official portrait by Kehinde Wiley came out, its easily manipulated vector graphics made it an easy target for parodies and satires. The funniest one, passed around from viewer to viewer, on Facebook, was by an unknown satirist here.
Or here:
It's funny because it says something so true about President Obama and his much vaunted Iran deal with the mullahs, which is the single foreign policy element of his legacy he and his minions defend hardest. The mullahs rolled in cash as a result of rolling Obama and his gullible team over the deal, knowing that Obama was desperate for some sort of legacy. They shook $1.7 billion out of him, based on $400 million in funds the old shah of Iran had deposited in the U.S. for military purchases. After that, they made off like bandits with the loot.
Hundreds of millions of dollars rolled in on pallets on secret flights to the mullahs, in addition to cash released from other sources. From there, it was spent on financing terrorism and insurrection in places such as Yemen, as well as in the Syrian conflict and beyond. As Iran fell into disrepair, its people choked by the effects of global sanctions, the mullahs lived it up, got rich, and then used that cash to spread trouble.
It's an ugly picture, and since then, the Obamatons have attempted to spread a myth to draw attention away from their rotten deal: that the cash from America was really Iran's cash all along, and the mullahs were just getting what was owed to them.
It's horse hockey. The estimable Lee Smith, writing in Tablet magazine, exposes how that $1.7 billion was anything but the rightful property of the mullahs.
First, when Iran submitted its claim in 1981, the US filed an $817 million counterclaim for Iran's violations of its obligations under the FMS program. As Rick Richman explained in a 2016 Mosaic article, "with both the claim and the counterclaim still pending, it was possible that Iran owed billions of dollars to the U.S., not the reverse."
Second, a 2000 law signed by President Bill Clinton, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, said that Iran's FMS account could not be refunded until court judgments held by the U.S. government against Iran for damages from terrorist acts against American citizens were resolved to America's satisfaction.
So, it turns out, the mullahs had had many judgments against them for inflicting terrorism on Americans, and some of them sued. Courts ruled for them, and the cash should have been paid from the original $400 million. It wasn't, but the judgments stood, and in the past, this has been the big obstacle for Iran to get its money back. Second, it wasn't its money anyway, given that Iran under the mullahs had violated the terms of the parked cash anyway.
And now the Obamatons defend their bad deal with Iran by saying it was all Iran's money anyway? Never mind the dead terrorist victims over the years. Give 'em nothing?
Someone seems to have a guilty conscience.
With Smith's reporting, another Obama myth is busted.
Nothing unites Democrats more than their loathing of one man and their disdain for the American voters who elected him. Donald Trump has succeeded in undoing much of the legacy left us by his leftist predecessor. And he's not done undoing. So it's easy to understand how the Democrats' boundless love for Barack Obama would translate into mindless hatred for Donald Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment