Tuesday, December 11, 2018

PEW - NO MAJORITY OF CITIZENS WANT MORE IMMIGRANTS - EXCEPT THE GLOBALIST LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY

Democrats can't stand the thought of protecting Americans



Democrats and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media tout themselves as concerned for those addicted to drugs and regularly support increased spending money for therapy.  But they refuse to fund building the wall and for border security on the Mexican border.
The wall would significantly stop the flow of illegal drugs through the Mexican border to the USA, which would reduce the supply of illegal drugs that cause addiction and deaths by overdose.  The Democrats and media support spending money to deal with the effects of drugs smuggled across the border but refuse to spend money to stop the smuggling.
There is no doubt that illegal drugs and most heroin come across the Mexican border.  And now we have fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is 80-100 times stronger than morphine.  According to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), "[c]landestinely-produced fentanyl is primarily manufactured in Mexico.

The Mexican cartels are producing fentanyl and also receive it from China to smuggle it to the USA.  It is very profitable for the cartels.

In 2017, more than 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, with at least 30,000 attributed to fentanyl.
President Trump has called for a border wall to stop illegal immigration and to reduce the flow of illegal drugs, such as heroin and fentanyl.  It is common sense and logical that building a wall and fully securing the southern border would reduce the flow of such drugs, reducing deaths and addiction.
Yet the Democrats refuse to fund the border wall and border security.
Senator Schumer and Speaker-Elect Pelosi agree to spend $1.5 billion for "border security" but not for a wall.  President Trump is asking for only $5 billion.  It is estimated that $27 to $40 billion is needed to fully fund the wall.
It is time to fully fund the border wall.  The Trump Shutdown should focus on the record number of Americans who die due to drugs smuggled from Mexico.  The focus should be on the Democrats and media that ignore the danger to Americans.  This debate should be coupled with the number of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens.
Democrats and their media will quibble about the exact number of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens.  But the point is that such crimes are avoidable if the border is secured.
President Trump must be supported to shut down the federal government to finally force funding the wall to  protect Americans.  The issue is protecting Americans.
Iran is the principal state sponsor and supporter of terrorism.  Iran has promised to destroy Israel.  Iran's Parliament chanted "death to America" while burning our flag.  The Dems and their media supported giving $150 billion to Iran but, they refuse to spend more than $1.5 billion to protect Americans, when they know that spending $27 to $40 billion would save thousands of Americans from death and addiction.
The bottom line is that the Dems and their media do not care about the security and safety of Americans.



Pew: No Majority of Citizens in the World Support Increasing Immigration



Caravan
GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP/Getty
7
2:49

There is no majority of citizens in the world that supports increasing immigration levels to their home nation, a Pew Research Center study reveals.

The research found that of the 27 nations surveyed, not a single one supported increasing immigration by a majority. In fact, less than 15 percent of the median total of the 27 nations’ citizens supported plans to increase immigration.
Meanwhile, 12 of the nations held majorities that supported reducing immigration, including Greece, Hungary, Italy, Germany, Israel, Russia, and South Africa. Greece and Israel have the largest majorities of citizens who support cutting immigration.
Only three countries of the 27 had citizen majorities that supported current immigration levels, including the United States, though it is unclear if Pew Research told U.S. citizens surveyed the number of immigrants admitted annually.
In polls where Americans are told the number of legal immigrants admitted every year — 1.5 million — they overwhelmingly support reducing immigration levels to raise the wages of workers and stop job displacement.
When Americans get to choose how many immigrants they want added a year to the U.S. population, about 6-in-10 favor a national immigration policy that admits anywhere between 500,000 to zero immigrants a year — indicating massive support among U.S. citizens for at least halving immigration to America.
Even without potentially being told current mass legal immigration levels, there are more Americans who told Pew Research Center pollsters that they want less immigration, 29 percent, than those who said they support more immigration, 24 percent.
The Pew Research survey comes as the United Nations’ “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” is set to be agreed upon by much of the Western world. President Trump removed the U.S. from the global pact last year, saying that it is not in American citizens’ interests to agree to mass immigration from across the globe.
Other countries that have joined the U.S. in opposing the mass immigration pact include the Czech Republic, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Israel, and Australia. Both Switzerland and Italy are expected to also oppose the pact.
Similar polling from Pew Research Center found a correlation between attitudes towards immigrants, themselves, and a nation’s immigration levels, Breitbart News reported. The survey found that in countries like Japan — which has zero net immigration — citizens have positive views towards immigrants.
In 2017, the legal and illegal immigrant population reached a record high of 44.5 million. By 2023, NumbersUSA estimates that the U.S. population will boom to 404 million residents due to continued legal immigration levels and immigrants will make up about 15 percent of the entire American population by 2023.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder




Simultaneously, illegal immigration next year is on track to soar to the highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000 border crossers expected.
“More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes migration a human right.”  VIRGINIA HALE



Washington, D.C. (December 10, 2018) - Video and transcript are now available from the Center for Immigration Studies' recent Immigration Newsmaker conversation with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) at the National Press Club. Chairman Goodlatte, who is retiring from Congress, discussed his 25 years in the House working on immigration policy, what he feels is necessary for a functioning immigration system that serves United States interests, and his predictions for the next Congress when the Democrats take over the House. The conversation was moderated by Jessica Vaughan, the Center's director of policy studies.

Highlights:
The Goodlatte bill ("Secure America's Future Act") 
"I thought it was a great bill. It's not comprehensive immigration reform, but it touched on all three of the areas of immigration reform hat need to be addressed – enforcement, legal immigration reform, and doing something about people who are not lawfully in the present . . . it got 193 votes. I think if it had been the only bill offered it might have passed. And if it had been worked hard by the – by the leadership organization to get the votes to pass it."
"Democrats, unfortunately, decided to pass on either one[Goodlatte bill and Rep. Ryan's compromise bill, Goodlatte-lite], which to me is telling about what their view of respect for the rule of law and enforcement of the law is, and what we might see from them in a – in a Democratic House."
E-Verify:
"E-Verify is very good right now . . . It's more than 99 percent accurate. It addressed the concern employers have of the 'Catch-22' situation they're in now, where if they refuse to hire somebody and it turns out the person is lawfully present in the United States, they can be sued for discrimination. On the other hand, if they decided to hire somebody and they find out they're not lawfully here, because they presented forged documents or whatever, they can be charged with violating our immigration laws."
"E-Verify is very inexpensive. It can be done in a minute or two on your smartphone. And it's very effective, but only for the 7(00,000) or 800,000 businesses in the United States that use it. And of course, most large employers, most major employers use it . . . And it should be made mandatory, so that everyone has to participate."
"The most effective tool to make people abide by our laws – whether they enter the country illegally or enter it illegally and overstay – is to cut off the number-one magnet that draws them here."
Funding the wall:
"I think that the president is well-served by insisting on this funding being provided. We're certainly prepared to do that in the House."
Asylum:
We should raise the initial threshold for credible fear determination . . . . "If you didn't meet that, then you would be immediately deportable again, whereas now the threshold for that initial process to get through to a hearing before an immigration judge is a very low bar. And then the waiting list to get to the judge is so long that the government is basically forced to allow people into the interior of the country, even given work authorization. And a high percentage of the people who get into that situation never come back for the asylum hearing."
Immigration policies being blocked by federal judges:
"I've introduced legislation to say that a district court judge cannot issue a nationwide injunction. I mean, to me, it's ridiculous that a judge in Hawaii would issue a nationwide injunction regarding the enforcement of any immigration law, particularly one that involves entering or leaving the country illegally, because his injunction worked perfectly fine for Hawaii. And beyond that, it's, in my opinion, none of his business. I mean, we don't have people swimming to Hawaii from anywhere else to enter Hawaii illegally."
" . . . this is, to me, very wrong. But it's also not something that the Congress ever created. This is entirely court-made law . . . But by not challenging some nationwide injunctions in previous administrations, and by higher courts giving the nod to that, we have essentially evolved into a situation where any judge anywhere can issue a nationwide injunction . . . the courts started it, and the courts can fix it.
Immigration priorities for the Democrats when they take over the House:
"They say they want to do immigration. I hope they take up the issue. But I am dubious, since when they were in the majority previously in the House for four years from 2006 to 2010 they did virtually nothing in the immigration area. And in part that was because of the unfortunate position taken by some members on the Democratic side that unless they could do everything they weren't going to do anything."
Guestworker programs:
"If you couple E-Verify with a legal guestworker program, I think you would find that we could stabilize that problem. But what's happened is people have said, well, you know, if they're working in agriculture, why not come over here and work in construction, or in hotels, or whatever. The difference is, that we can't import a house from another country like you can import apples or wheat or beef or poultry. And you can't import a hotel. So those areas of the law, I would argue, you need to have the requirement that they comply with the law. And if they aren't getting the workers that they need in compliance with the law, they might have to raise their wages. Wouldn't that be something, right? (Laughter.) And help deal with the fact that when you have illegal workers going into those sectors of the economy, you're depressing the entire workforce."
Entry-Exit:
We need an entry-exit visa system, "so that when people enter legally – we should know whether or not they've left the country. And if they haven't, then we could develop, you know, a more focused way of looking for specific people when they apply for jobs and so on. You shouldn't just get turned down because the Social Security number you presented happens to not be a legitimate Social Security number and therefore didn't work in the E-Verify system. The next step should be, well, now here you are. We know where you are. You entered the country legally, but we're going to require you to leave the country now."
An ideal immigration policy:
". . . if I were able to write these laws myself and I didn't have to go through a House, and the Senate, and the president, I would have our immigration programs fluctuate with the economy and the labor demands, because it constantly fluctuates. So I would be happy to see things go down when there's an abundance of workers and go up when there isn't. But part of that is driven by the fact that people enter the country illegally – even in the Trump administration – in huge numbers."  
"We are also a nation of laws. And losing respect for the rule of law is what is at stake here. And it's not just respect for immigration laws. You can flout these laws, as so many people – both people in this country and people trying to enter this country are doing cooperatively, like we're seeing right now at the border. If you can flout those laws, you're going to flout other laws as well."
Present high levels of immigration:
"But, yes, that definitely concerns me. So eliminate chain migration, focusing on employment-based legal immigration and the immediate nuclear family. I think anybody who wants to marry somebody from anywhere in the world, wants to bring them to the United States, our law allows that and should continue to allow it, as long as it's not fraudulent. And their children, of course. But that's the kind of reform that I think would be good for immigration policy."

What’s Happening at the Center

As part of our Immigration Newsmaker series, we sat down with retiring Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), current chair of the House Judiciary Committee. For the last 25 years, Mr. Goodlatte has been a strong advocate for border and interior enforcement, and sponsored a number of important reform bills, most recently including asylum reform, a national E-Verify mandate, ending the visa lottery and reducing chain migration, measures to streamline the deportation of criminal aliens, and penalties for sanctuary jurisdictions. In addition, Mr. Goodlatte conducted vital oversight over executive branch policies such as the controversial prosecutorial discretion scheme implemented by the Obama administration and the government’s handling of the recent influx of unaccompanied minors and family units. The conversation was moderated by Jessica Vaughan and covered prospects for immigration legislation and the challenges the country will face in upcoming years.





MEXICO'S LA RAZA ANCHOR BABY WELFARE STATE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE, HOMELESSNESS, HOUSING CRISIS, ONE PARTY GLOBALIST GOVERNMENT...now do the math!







"More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes migration a human right." VIRGINIA HALE


NO WONDER AMERICA HAS A HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS CRISIS!





Illegal Immigration Last Month Hit Highest Level in Over a Decade



Migrants, US Border
Moises Castillo/AP
 13
2:35

Illegal immigration skyrocketed to the highest level in more than a decade for the month of November, as President Trump’s border wall remains unfunded by the Republican-controlled Congress.

Last month, illegal immigration at the United States-Mexico border soared to levels that the country has not seen since Fiscal Year 2014, when more than 51,500 illegal aliens tried to cross the border in April 2015.
In November 2018, there were close to 52,000 border crossings on the southern border, alone, marking the highest level of illegal immigration in the month of November since 2006.
The continuing rise of illegal immigration at the southern border indicates that Fiscal Year 2019 will see the biggest boom of illegal immigration in more than a decade, according to Princeton Researcher Steven Kopits.
In total, Kopits projects that there will be more than 600,000 border crossings next year — a level of illegal immigration that the country has not seen since Fiscal Year 2008, when total southwest border apprehensions exceeded 705,000.
This puts illegal immigration under Trump on track to double what border crossings were in Fiscal Year 2017, when about 310,000 illegal aliens attempted to cross into the U.S. from the southern border.
Spiraling illegal immigration to the country is set behind a backdrop of a White House and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, that have yet to convince House and Senate Republicans — who only have control of Congress for about a month — to fund Trump’s central campaign promise: A southern border wall.
At the same time of the rising illegal immigration totals, the U.S. is continuing to admit more than a million legal immigrants every year to take American jobs. The mass immigration scheme is a boon to real estate developers, who thrive on the booming populations in major cities, and employers who benefit from a flooded labor market with stagnant U.S. wages and displaced American workers.
The country’s mass immigration policy also has massive rewards for Democrats, who are set to import between seven to eight million new foreign-born voters solely from the process known as “chain migration,” and overall, an additional 15 million new foreign-born voters.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.





Poll: 6-in-7 GOP Voters Say Minorities Favored over White Americans

People vote at a polling place at a high school in McLean, Virginia during the US presidential election on November 8, 2016. / AFP / ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS (Photo credit should read ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images)
ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images
2:38

Midterm election polling analysis reveals deep divides between Democrat and Republican voters on the growing multicultural populations in the United States.

Polling analysis from the Pew Research Center reveals that the overwhelming majority of Republican voters in the recent midterm elections, 85 percent, say the U.S. today favors minorities over white Americans. Only 11 percent of GOP voters said white Americans are favored over minority groups.
On the opposite end of the political spectrum, 87 percent of Democrat voters in the midterm elections say white Americans are favored in the U.S. over minorities. Only 12 percent of Democrat voters say minorities are favored over white Americans today.
The poll is an indication, again, of a Republican Party that is increasingly made up of a white working- and middle-class majority that feel disenfranchised due to country’s mass immigration policy of importing more than a million legal immigrants a year, while at the same time, having their jobs outsourced to foreign countries through the globalization of the country’s economy.
Polling and the recent midterm elections show, yet again, little-to-no support for economic libertarianism with GOP voters overwhelmingly in support of President Donald Trump’s economic nationalism.
For example, while the New York Times has complained that states with a white American majority pose “an array of problems,” the process known as “chain migration” — whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. with them — has imported more than nine million foreign nationals since 2005.
As Breitbart News reported, if chain migration is not ended — as President Trump has demanded — the U.S. electorate will forever be changed, with between seven to eight million new foreign-born individuals being eligible to vote because of chain migration, and overall, an additional 15 million new foreign-born voters.
Simultaneously, illegal immigration next year is on track to soar to the highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000 border crossers expected.
Meanwhile, free trade with China has eliminated or outsourced about 3.5 million American jobs since 2001. Polling this year found that a majority of GOP voters say free trade has hurt the U.S. and cost Americans their jobs.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Gallup: More Than 750 Million People Globally Now Wanting to Migrate
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/10/gallup-750-million-wanting-migrate/





Gallup
Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
 638
2:54

More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes migration a human right.


The Gallup World Poll survey, which interviewed 453,122 adults in 152 countries between 2015 and 2017, found that 15 per cent of the world’s adult population would like to move to another country if they had the chance.
Noting this proportion had risen from 13 per cent between 2010 and 2012, and 14 per cent between 2013 and 2016, the pollster commented that rising populism and a backlash to mass immigration seen in many Western electorates has apparently not deterred would-be migrants from wanting to seek a better standard of living elsewhere.
Regionally, the desire to migrate was found to be highest in sub-Saharan Africa, where 33 per cent of adults wanted to migrate permanently, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (27 per cent), European nations outside of the EU (26 per cent), and the Middle East and North Africa (24 per cent).
Gallup found there were 13 countries in which half or more of the adult population said they wanted to migrate to another country, with Sierra Leone (71 per cent) topping the list for its proportion of would-be migrants, followed by Liberia (66 per cent) and Haiti (63 per cent).


The U.S. remains by far the most popular country for people wanting to move abroad, with 21 per cent of potential migrants selecting it as their top destination, with Canada, Germany, France, Australia, and the UK each also ranking highly.
Politicians from around the world gathered in Marrakesh, Morocco, on Monday to sign their countries up to a UN accord declaring mass immigration to be “inevitable, desirable and necessary”; however a large number of nations including the U.S., Australia, Chile, Israel, and several EU countries withdrew from the agreement over concerns about national sovereignty.
Earlier this year, Breitbart London reported on data from the Pew Research Center which revealed that up to two-thirds of the 1.1 billion population — a number set to more than double by 2050 — of sub-Saharan Africa were wanting to migrate to Europe or the U.S., millions of whom were planning on making the journey within the next five years.
Analysts such as NumbersUSA president Roy Beck have long pointed out that mass migration into Western countries can never resolve the challenges faced by poor countries, especially as populations in the third world increase.


MEXICANS ARE THE CULTURE OF THIEVERY. THEY NOT ONLY STEAL MILLIONS OF JOBS WITH STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY, THEY STEAL ANYTHING THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON.

"Mexicans cheat, distribute drugs, lie, forge documents, STEAL and kill a s if it’s a normal way of life. For them, it is. Mexico’s civilization stands diametrically opposed to America’s culture.:  FROSTY WOOLDRIDGE
One of the most serious of those crimes involves the theft of the identities of millions of United States citizens and lawfully-admitted immigrants whose citizenship, lawful immigrant status and good names are valued commodities that provide millions of illegal aliens with a sort of “camouflage.” MICHAEL CUTLER
 AMERICA: THE WORLD’S WELFARE OFFICE

With crime soaring, rampant homelessness, sanctuary state status attracting the highest illegal immigrant population in the country and its “worst state in the U.S. to do business” ranking for more than a decade, California and its expansive, debt-ridden, progressive government is devolving into a third-world country. JANET LEVY

"This is how they will destroy America from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants.  They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY

"Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become." FAIR President Dan Stein
It needs U.S. support for its war on cartels. Instead of insulting American citizens, Mexico should confront directly the reasons why its people are so desperate to leave, and do all in its power to destroy the cartels that are slowly killing the nation. That includes defunding the murderous gangs by halting illegal immigration.
“Concern over immigrant welfare use is justified, as households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare at high rates. Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based immigration think tank. By Paul Bedard 
Washington Examiner

Who ultimately really pays for all the true cost of all that "cheap" labor?
THE DEVASTATING COST OF MEXICO’S WELFARE STATE IN AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS


“The Democrats had abandoned their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”.  DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE 

BILLIONAIRES FOR wider OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED and AMERICA FLOODED WITH FOREIGNERS.
But Benioff’s cheap-labor importation plan would also shrink the income and careers sought by millions of American college graduates, many of whom will vote in 2020 for or against Trump. 

The nation’s workforce now includes roughly 1.5 million foreign college-graduate contract-workers who are imported via the H-1B, L-1, OPT, O-1, J-1, and other visa programs. These outsourcing workers are not immigrants, but instead, they are contract workers hired for one to six years, at lower wages, to take jobs that would otherwise go to American graduates.
The Americans’ salary loss, however, would be a gain for the CEOs who see their profits rise and their stock options spike as middle-class salaries decline. 

Census Confirms: 63 Percent of ‘Non-Citizens’ on Welfare, 4.6 Million Households 
By Paul Bedard 
Washington Examiner, December 3, 2018 

“Concern over immigrant welfare use is justified, as households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare at high rates. Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based immigration think tank. 

The numbers are huge. The report said that there are 4,684,784 million non-citizen households receiving welfare. 
. . . 
Their key findings in the analysis: 

* In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households. 

*Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives). 
. . . 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households 

 

Let’s Shrink Illegal Alien Population, 

Save Billions at Same Time



 By David North |


The usually discussed techniques for lowering the size of the illegal alien population are two in number:
  • Reducing the inflow of illegals, such as by building a wall; and
  • Mandating the departure of others through deportation.
There is a third variable, rarely discussed, that reaches the same goal without coercion and could be something that Democrats and Republicans might agree on: the subsidized and voluntary departure of some of the undocumented and other aging, low-income foreign-born. It probably would require an act of Congress.
I am thinking of a technique for selectively encouraging the emigration of those among the foreign-born who are most likely to become welfare users in the future. It would save billions and billions of federal dollars a year, and some state funds as well.
It is based on, among other things, the fact that most of the illegals are from warmer climates than our own, and reminds me of a conversation I had years ago on this subject with a Jamaica-born resident of the United States who told me of her fond memories of the warmth of that island: "Don't forget, old bones are cold bones."
Hence, the proposed Return to Warmth (RTW) program, which would directly subsidize the departure of numerous foreign-born persons, many of them here illegally, and would indirectly help the economies of the nations from which they migrated. That would be the genial face of the RTW program, which fits with its deliberately friendly name.
Meanwhile, it would prevent large numbers of these migrants from participating in our Medicare program and other (less expensive) income transfer programs, saving billions a year, and thus making RTW attractive to conservatives.
Let's look at some specifics.
In the following table, we show the roughly estimated 2017 per capita costs to the United States of the foreign-born Social Security beneficiaries while in the United States, and while in their home countries. It is drawn from government data easily available on the internet, such as the Medicare budget (which was $720 billion in 2017) and on similar sources for the numbers of beneficiaries.
The table is also based on the fact that many Social Security beneficiaries, including many of the foreign-born, can draw their checks in most of the rest of the world, but would not be able to participate in other programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income. All four require residence in the United States.
Given the information above, one might assume that virtually no one would want to take their Social Security benefits abroad. That is not the case.
More than 650,000 Social Security checks are mailed overseas each month and this number (and the percentage of retirees who do this) is slowly but steadily increasing, according to various issues of the of the Social Security Administration's Annual Statistical Supplement. Here are the totals and the percentages of all beneficiaries for three recent years:
During the early 1990s the percentage was about 0.75 percent.
Clearly this is an arrangement that is, slowly, growing in popularity. My suggestion is that we deliberately increase its size.
The evidence, incidentally, suggests strongly that most of these checks are notgoing to wealthy people who have decided to retire to the Riviera rather than Boca Raton. Average annual payouts of Social Security benefits were $15,208 nationally in 2017, and only $8,178 for those getting their checks abroad. Thus, the overseas checks were only 54 percent of the national average, reflecting the substantially lower lifetime incomes of those who retired abroad. This is not a rich population.
While I cannot document it, I learned some years ago, in a conversation with a SSA staffer, that more than 90 percent of those getting checks overseas were not born in the United States.
Proposal
The U.S. should create a new program (RTW) to encourage these movements back to the home countries, providing a range of new benefits to stimulate such returns, but designing them in such a way that the returnees will tend to stay returned once they have left.
If the United States can save $17,000 a year on each of hundreds of thousands of people, and all of them will stop making the impact that the rest of us do on the environment, this country will be making major progress, without using any coercion at all. And the savings of some $17,000 a year, per capita, means that it would be appropriate to offer some really enticing rewards to those thinking about leaving the country.
Who Would Qualify? Since a major part of the motivation is to reduce the illegal alien population, such persons would not be disqualified. I would limit it to foreign-born persons who qualify now, or will soon, for Social Security retirement, of whatever civil status, from illegal to citizen. It would only apply to people wanting to return to their native lands, and might not apply to a comparative few whose homes are within, say, 300 miles of the U.S. borders. (These people would be tempted to live secretly in the United States while collecting abroad.)
Dependents of the beneficiary could qualify, at any age, but the principals would have to be 61 years of age or older.
The Reward Package. This has to be enticing enough to encourage Social Security beneficiaries to seek it, despite the basic math outlined above (which many of them might sense, even without knowing the details.) Such a package might include:
  • Retirement benefits at the age of 61, instead of the usual 62;
  • A 10 percent bonus on the Social Security benefit while the beneficiary is abroad;
  • Free one-way plane tickets for the principal and the dependents; and
  • Checks totaling $5,000, half on arrival in the home country, and the other half a year later, but only paid in person, at a U.S. consulate or embassy.
Holy cow, some might say, you are going to be giving some illegals 10 percent more in Social Security for the rest of their lives! Isn't that an extravagant waste?
The 10 percent increase, based on current Social Security data, would mean that the overseas individual would get an additional $818 a year. That would be more than balanced by the Medicare savings of $10,778 a year; maybe we should set the Social Security benefit increase at 25 percent or more.
The monthly checks would have to be cashed in the home country, in person, by the beneficiary, and within 60 days of their issuance. Further, such checks would need to be endorsed by the beneficiary along with a thumb print of that person, and a note on the back of the check indicating the name of the cashier who accepted the check, and the date thereof. Banks that showed a pattern of check abuse would be barred from depositing these checks in the future.
All receiving any part of the bonus package would have to agree in writing to not seek to return to the United States under any circumstances for three or five years; if they did (or their checks were cashed in the United States), the government would halve the future benefit checks until the bonuses had been repaid. If they came back to the United States twice within those years, the beneficiary would be no longer be eligible for SSA retirement checks unless, perhaps, they were citizens, in which case a milder penalty would be exacted. (No one using the RTW benefits would be eligible to apply for naturalization, or any other immigration benefit.)
The benefit package suggested above is not set in stone; it could be altered, but it would have to offer the foreign-born a substantial benefit. Provisions should be made to use tax funds to compensate the Social Security system for its additional costs.
The benefits should be made available to those in deportation hearings, if they were otherwise eligible, thus reducing the backlogs in the immigration courts.
Someone who had received the rewards described above could ask to be excused from the program by voluntarily returning the extra moneys; but this would be rare, and would be available to only those who had been in the United States legally at the time of retirement.
Other Advantages of RTW. Other advantages to the government of RTW would be lowering pressure on energy assistance plans for the poor; on public housing, which in many cities includes special housing for the elderly; and on non-public food banks and the like. In addition, there would be the less obvious advantages of a lower population and less wear and tear on the built environment.
In the specific instance of shutting down Temporary Protected Status for people from some nations, it would ease the departure of the older ones. Perhaps some TPS beneficiaries within a year or two of the RTW minimum age could be given special dispensations.
As for the returnees, the principal advantage to them would be the lower costs of living in the homelands, as opposed to those costs in the United States. There would also be the previously cited warmer weather (for most), the ease of returning to a situation where everyone uses one's native language, and for many, losing the fear of deportation. In short, a win-win situation.
This suggestion takes a long view of the question of migrant utilization of our income transfer programs and would impose some short-term costs on the government (the reward packages) in exchange for steady savings in the future. It certainly would be subject to attempted abuse, but in the long run it would start saving us $17,000 a year times hundreds of thousands of people.
It would be a quiet program, in contrast to the wall and border skirmishes, but it would inevitably lead to fewer illegal aliens in the nation, and lower welfare costs.
Why not try it for a while?
David North, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, has over 40 years of immigration policy experience.
Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by the Center for Immigration Studies.

 

 

 

 

Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant

Welfare



US Customs and Border Patrol
 4 Dec 201811,383
2:45

More than 7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.

The latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of households headed by native-born Americans use welfare in California.
All four states with the largest foreign-born populations, including California, have extremely high use of welfare by immigrant households. In Texas, for example, nearly 70 percent of households headed by immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare. Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of native-born households in Texas are on welfare.
In New York and Florida, a majority of households headed by immigrants and noncitizens are on welfare. Overall, about 63 percent of immigrant households use welfare while only 35 percent of native-born households use welfare.
President Trump’s administration is looking to soon implement a policy that protects American taxpayers’ dollars from funding the mass importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals by enforcing a “public charge” rule whereby legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using Obamacare, food stamps, and public housing.
The immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 


NON-CITIZEN 


HOUSEHOLDS ALMOST


TWICE AS LIKELY TO 


BE ON WELFARE



December 3, 2018

Some truths are just basic and obvious. Yet the media insists on shoveling out nonsense about how Elon Musk and Sergey Brin are representative of the average immigrant. They're not. They used to be more representative before Ted Kennedy decided to replicate the ideal political ecosystem of the Democrats across the country. And so now here we are.
Skilled immigration is tough to manage. Unskilled migration is everywhere. With the inevitable results shown in his CIS study.
In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.
Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).
Mass migration, of the kind that the Left champions, is dangerous and destructive. It's also hideously expensive. As unskilled migration continues, American competitiveness declines to match those countries where the migrants originate from. 
We're losing our work ethic, our skill sets and our reputation for innovation.
And meanwhile we sink ever deeper into a welfare state of the kind that the Democrats can always run and win on.

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.






A sign in a market window advertises this store accepts food stamps in New York, on Oct. 7, 2010. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Majority of Non-Citizen Households in US Access Welfare Programs, Report Finds

 

HTTPS://WWW.THEEPOCHTIMES.COM/NEARLY-TWO-THIRDS-OF-NON-CITIZENS-ACCESS-WELFARE-PROGRAMS-REPORT-FINDS_2729720.HTML?REF=BRIEF_NEWS&UTM_SOURCE=EPOCH+TIMES+NEWSLETTERS&UTM_CAMPAIGN=6D

BY ALYSIA E. GARRISON

December 3, 2018 Updated: December 4, 2018
Almost 2 out of 3 non-citizen households in the United States receive some form of welfare, according to a report released by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
The report, released Dec. 2, found 63 percent of non-citizen households in the United States tap at least one welfare program, compared with 35 percent of native households. The findings are based on the Census Bureau’s latest 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Non-citizen households are using welfare food programs and Medicaid at twice the rate of native households, the study found. There are a total of 4.68 million non-citizen households receiving some form of welfare and the numbers don’t improve over time. For non-citizens who remain in the country for more than 10 years, the percentage of welfare recipients rises to 70 percent.
In this study, non-citizens are defined as long-term temporary visitors, such as guest workers and foreign students, permanent residents who haven’t yet naturalized (so-called green card holders), and illegal immigrants.
“Of non-citizens in the Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally,” the CIS estimates.
The new analysis supports President Donald Trump’s worry that immigrants—both legal and illegal—impose tremendous fiscal costs on the nation.
Legal immigrants are initially barred from many, but not all, welfare programs; after a period of time in the United States, they are able to qualify. Today, most legal immigrants have lived in the U.S. long enough to qualify for many welfare programs. Some states provide welfare to new immigrants independent of the federal government.
The biggest avenue non-citizens use to access welfare is through their children.
“Non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth,” the CIS notes.
Although a number of programs were examined in the report, no single program accounts for the discrepancy in the use of welfare programs between citizens and non-citizens. For example, the CIS said when “not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households, compared with 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared with 30 percent for natives.”
The CIS report suggests that a lack of education is the primary cause of immigrants’ high rate of welfare use.
“A much larger share of non-citizens have [a] modest level of education,” CIS says, and therefore “they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates.”
To support this claim, the CIS said 58 percent of all non-citizen households are headed by immigrants with no more than a high school education, compared with 36 percent of native households. Of these non-citizen households with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs, versus only 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate.
In an effort to reduce the rate of welfare use among future immigrants, the Trump administration has issued new “public charge” laws. These laws expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, so that receiving these benefits may prevent prospective immigrants from receiving a green card. However, these changes “do not include all the benefits that non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules,” according to CIS.
The CIS recommends using education levels and potential future income to determine the likelihood of future welfare use for potential green-card applicants, to reduce welfare use among non-citizens.

It Pays to be Illegal in California

 By JENNIFER G. HICKEY  May 10, 2018 
It certainly is a good time to be an illegal alien in California. Democratic State Sen. Ricardo Lara last week pitched a bill to permit illegal immigrants to serve on all state and local boards and commissions. This week, lawmakers unveiled a $1 billion health care plan that would include spending $250 million to extend health care coverage to all illegal alien adults.
“Currently, undocumented adults are explicitly and unjustly locked out of healthcare due to their immigration status. In a matter of weeks, California legislators will have a decisive opportunity to reverse that cruel and counterproductive fact,” Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula said in Monday’s Sacramento Bee.
His legislation, Assembly Bill 2965, would give as many as 114,000 uninsured illegal aliens access to Medi-Cal programs. A companion bill has been sponsored by State Sen. Richard Lara.
But that could just be a drop in the bucket. The Democrats’ plan covers more than 100,000 illegal aliens with annual incomes bless than $25,000, however an estimated 1.3 million might be eligible based on their earnings.
In addition, it is estimated that 20 percent of those living in California illegally are uninsured – the $250 million covers just 11 percent.
So, will politicians soon be asking California taxpayers once again to dip into their pockets to pay for the remaining 9 percent?
Before they ask for more, Democrats have to win the approval of Gov. Jerry Brown, who cautioned against spending away the state’s surplus when he introduced his $190 billion budget proposal in January.
Given Brown’s openness to expanding Medi-Cal expansions in recent years, not to mention his proclivity for blindly supporting any measure benefitting lawbreaking immigrants, the latest fiscal irresponsibility may win approval.
And if he takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive social spending and are actively courting illegal immigrant support.

Majority of Non-Citizen Households in US Access Welfare Programs, Report Finds



   
Almost 2 out of 3 non-citizen households in the United States receive some form of welfare, according to a report released by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
The report, released Dec. 2, found 63 percent of non-citizen households in the United States tap at least one welfare program, compared with 35 percent of native households. The findings are based on the Census Bureau’s latest 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Non-citizen households are using welfare food programs and Medicaid at twice the rate of native households, the study found. There are a total of 4.68 million non-citizen households receiving some form of welfare and the numbers don’t improve over time. For non-citizens who remain in the country for more than 10 years, the percentage of welfare recipients rises to 70 percent.
In this study, non-citizens are defined as long-term temporary visitors, such as guest workers and foreign students, permanent residents who haven’t yet naturalized (so-called green card holders), and illegal immigrants.
“Of non-citizens in the Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally,” the CIS estimates.
The new analysis supports President Donald Trump’s worry that immigrants—both legal and illegal—impose tremendous fiscal costs on the nation.
Legal immigrants are initially barred from many, but not all, welfare programs; after a period of time in the United States, they are able to qualify. Today, most legal immigrants have lived in the U.S. long enough to qualify for many welfare programs. Some states provide welfare to new immigrants independent of the federal government.
The biggest avenue non-citizens use to access welfare is through their children.
“Non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth,” the CIS notes.
Although a number of programs were examined in the report, no single program accounts for the discrepancy in the use of welfare programs between citizens and non-citizens. For example, the CIS said when “not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households, compared with 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared with 30 percent for natives.”
The CIS report suggests that a lack of education is the primary cause of immigrants’ high rate of welfare use.
“A much larger share of non-citizens have [a] modest level of education,” CIS says, and therefore “they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates.”
To support this claim, the CIS said 58 percent of all non-citizen households are headed by immigrants with no more than a high school education, compared with 36 percent of native households. Of these non-citizen households with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs, versus only 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate.
In an effort to reduce the rate of welfare use among future immigrants, the Trump administration has issued new “public charge” laws. These laws expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, so that receiving these benefits may prevent prospective immigrants from receiving a green card. However, these changes “do not include all the benefits that non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules,” according to CIS.

The CIS recommends using education levels and potential future income to determine the likelihood of future welfare use for potential green-card applicants, to reduce welfare use among non-citizens.








Migrant Family Border Apprehensions Skyrocket 270 Percent in Nov. over Prior Year


Nearly 150 Central American migrants seeking political asylum in the United States are detained by the Border Patrol, after entering the US through the Rio Grande, along the border with Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua state, Mexico, on December 3, 2018. - Thousands of Central American migrants, mostly Hondurans, have trekked for …
File Photo: HERIKA MARTINEZ/AFP/Getty Images
 179
4:29
















The apprehension of migrant families along the U.S. border with Mexico skyrocketed in November when compared to the previous year. Federal officials reported a 270 percent increase from November 2017 to this year.

Border Patrol agents apprehended 25,172 Family Unit Aliens (FMUA) along the U.S.-Mexico border in November, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Southwest Border Migration Report released this week. This compared to November 2017’s report of 7,016 FMUA apprehensions — an increase of nearly 270 percent.
The current November apprehensions report also represents an increase of 60 percent over November 2016’s (the month of President Donald Trump’s election.
“The November 2018 border numbers are the predictable result of a broken immigration system – including flawed judicial rulings – that usurps the will of the American people who have repeatedly demanded secure borders,” DHS Spokeswoman Katie Waldman said in a written statement on Thursday. “To address the obvious crisis at our border, the President has recently deployed the military and signed a new measure that, in conjunction with a joint DOJ regulation, makes illegal border crossers ineligible for asylum.”
During the first two months of Fiscal Year 2019, Border Patrol agents apprehended a total of 42,287 migrant families — an increase of 307 over the same period in FY2018.
Agents in the El Paso Sector saw the largest percentage increase in the apprehension of family units in the past year. The numbers jumped from 591 in November 2017 to 11,617 for the first two months of this fiscal year. The Rio Grande Valley Sector continues to lead the nation with 23,012 FMUA apprehensions in October and November. Only the Big Bend Sector witnessed a decrease in family apprehensions.
Following is the breakdown of apprehensions of Family Unit Aliens by Border Patrol Sector for the first two months of this fiscal year as reported by CBP:
SectorFY18TD         FY19TD          % Change
FY18TD to FY19TD    
Big Bend22948-79%
Del Rio3131,379341%
El Centro4391,696286%
El Paso59111,6171,866%
Laredo8717095%
Rio Grande7,28023,012216%
San Diego3782,649601%
Tucson5391,922257%
Yuma1,9965,794190%
USBP Southwest Border Total11,85248,287307%
Migrants continue to exploit the loophole created by Congress in 2008 that prohibits expedited removal of minors without a hearing. Since that time, hundreds of thousands of migrants have flocked to the U.S. border to take advantage of what has become a magnet for illegal immigrants.
“We continue to call on Congress to address the crisis at the border by closing legal loopholes that drive illegal immigration,” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Press Secretary Tyler Q. Houlton said in a July 2018 statement obtained by Breitbart News.
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Border/Cartel Chronicles. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.



Americans, Learn From The Yellow Jackets: Stop Running And Start Fighting Back


In France, the Yellow Jackets (or “Gilets Jaunes” in French) have rushed into the streets in massive numbers. They are not protesting cuts in the generous entitlements. They are not throwing fits because they fear losing one-month paid vacations. The fight is about the increased fuel taxesexorbitant taxes on top of the already high cost of fuel. 
But it’s more. The Macron government, an aloof, elitism regime, is pushing a globalist, pro-EU agenda, one which is crippling the quality of life for working Frenchmen, especially in rural areas and small towns. Mass migration, bureaucratic wrangling, massive crime and unemployment with minimal police presence are raving the country. Sadly, this is history repeating itself as farce. Like now, Western and Northern France rebelled during the French Revolution. The bloodthirsty Jacobins, lead by cat-like Robespierre, seized power from the French King, but their so-called reforms in the name of social justice ended up hurting the very working people they claimed to care about 
The unrest is also targeting the inflexible, unaccountable EU bureaucracyBelgian Yellow Jackets are protesting the main offices in Maastricht and Brussels. Europeans have started to realize that the federalization of the continent is not working out as they had hoped. A common currency, a common market has turned into communistic micromanaging. The economically stronger countries are expected to carry the costs of the fiscally weaker nations. The central planners want open borders, cheap labor, and the resolute silencing of any disagreement to their plans. A federalized Europe is not working out. A Frenchman cannot run to Portugal, Spain, or Italy to escape the moral and fiscal ruin of his home country. French voters have no choice but to fight back for their rights and dignity in their home countries. 
France’s Yellow Jacket revolt is spreading into the Netherlands as well. The Dutchmen are just as animated, but less violent, expressing pent-up outrage over similar issues: excessive taxes, open borders, but also a stifling culture of political correctness. This subtle anti-free speech tyranny has inhibited a healthy exploration of difficult issues, but has hindered public safety. Islamic militants among the teeming masses of refugees are overwhelming Europe, undermining the tenuous social fabric of the Western World and bringing rampant acts of terrorism in their wake. Islamic preachers call publicly for full-on conquest Europe, the imposition of Sharia law, and with it the casting out of freedom, the democratic process, and civil rights for all. However, law-abiding citizens face criminal penalties for criticizing Islam, Allah, or for calling out the violent tendencies advocated for in the Koran. This injustice cannot stand any longer, so the people are taking to the streets. 
Even in Canada, a small yet growing contingent of Yellow Jacket protests are gathering in different urban centers, including Calgary, Alberta and Ottawa, Ontario: the federal seat of the national government. They are protesting Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax scheme. They are also rising up against Trudeau’s lax defense and border control policies. Seven conservative provincial premiers are pushing back against the federal government’s insistence on taking in large numbers of Middle Eastern refugees, but refusing to pick up the costs for this program. 
Throughout the Western World, people are clamoring for the freedom to speak out against Islam, against the aggressive secular agenda invading their schools and the government. In general, they are forcefully denouncing the rogue cult of progressivism. As the taxes and dead bodies pile up, as the degradation of the public square becomes more prominent, the citizens are pushing back.  
Contrast these European uprisings with the United States. Instead of fighting big statism, Americans are fleeing their home state in droves. Californians are in mass exodus, including members of my own family. If they don’t like the blue state bureaucracy, American citizens enjoy the luxury of moving to a red state. And yet, this intra-migration process is hitting a brick wall. Some reliably red states have been trending blue over the last ten years. After Election 2018, progressives are targeting more of them. 
One contact from New Mexico just witnessed this Democratic resurgence. The lone Republican Congressman, Steve Pearce, lost his bid for governor, and his seat flipped blue (likely due to voter fraud, but no one’s fighting it). “I am planning on moving out of here,” she told me. But I had to ask: “Where do you plan to go?” Arizona suffered some Democratic wins. Wisconsin and Michigan will have Democrats installed in statewide offices next year. Republicans still control those state legislatures for now, but for how much longer? Even ruby-red Kansas just elected a Democratic Governor. Another friend (who had relocated to the Sunflower State) expressed shock and disdain, even though he enjoys the much lower cost of living. “Kansas City is getting more liberal now. The cancer is spreading everywhere!” Yesterday, a Townhall columnist wrote a steadied piece on the full-on Democratic takeover of Virginia in the last decade, too. I visited there last yearit felt like Los Angeles, only worse. Americans are finding that there are fewer places where they can flee from state’s oppressive governments. 
Americans better learn the lesson and follow the example of their Yellow Jacket peers: assert your rights in your home states. Running to Texas is not the final answer. Texas is combatting a blue undercurrent already. The seduction of socialism, which gives way to the specter of communism, has possessed the minds of college students there as well as in California, Oregon, and Washington State. Don’t flee, fight back, Americans. It’s time to Make America Great Again, not just find a redder state to retire in.  
The Founding Fathers didn’t pull up stakes and flee west of the Appalachian Mountains when the British Empire exacted higher taxes while denying the American colonists’ equal representation in parliament. If American citizens don’t like what they see happening at the local level or the state level in their home states, they need to start fighting back, because there are fewer places to run to.

Americans, Learn From The Yellow Jackets: Stop Running And Start Fighting Back


In France, the Yellow Jackets (or “Gilets Jaunes” in French) have rushed into the streets in massive numbers. They are not protesting cuts in the generous entitlements. They are not throwing fits because they fear losing one-month paid vacations. The fight is about the increased fuel taxesexorbitant taxes on top of the already high cost of fuel. 
But it’s more. The Macron government, an aloof, elitism regime, is pushing a globalist, pro-EU agenda, one which is crippling the quality of life for working Frenchmen, especially in rural areas and small towns. Mass migration, bureaucratic wrangling, massive crime and unemployment with minimal police presence are raving the country. Sadly, this is history repeating itself as farce. Like now, Western and Northern France rebelled during the French Revolution. The bloodthirsty Jacobins, lead by cat-like Robespierre, seized power from the French King, but their so-called reforms in the name of social justice ended up hurting the very working people they claimed to care about 
The unrest is also targeting the inflexible, unaccountable EU bureaucracyBelgian Yellow Jackets are protesting the main offices in Maastricht and Brussels. Europeans have started to realize that the federalization of the continent is not working out as they had hoped. A common currency, a common market has turned into communistic micromanaging. The economically stronger countries are expected to carry the costs of the fiscally weaker nations. The central planners want open borders, cheap labor, and the resolute silencing of any disagreement to their plans. A federalized Europe is not working out. A Frenchman cannot run to Portugal, Spain, or Italy to escape the moral and fiscal ruin of his home country. French voters have no choice but to fight back for their rights and dignity in their home countries. 
France’s Yellow Jacket revolt is spreading into the Netherlands as well. The Dutchmen are just as animated, but less violent, expressing pent-up outrage over similar issues: excessive taxes, open borders, but also a stifling culture of political correctness. This subtle anti-free speech tyranny has inhibited a healthy exploration of difficult issues, but has hindered public safety. Islamic militants among the teeming masses of refugees are overwhelming Europe, undermining the tenuous social fabric of the Western World and bringing rampant acts of terrorism in their wake. Islamic preachers call publicly for full-on conquest Europe, the imposition of Sharia law, and with it the casting out of freedom, the democratic process, and civil rights for all. However, law-abiding citizens face criminal penalties for criticizing Islam, Allah, or for calling out the violent tendencies advocated for in the Koran. This injustice cannot stand any longer, so the people are taking to the streets. 
Even in Canada, a small yet growing contingent of Yellow Jacket protests are gathering in different urban centers, including Calgary, Alberta and Ottawa, Ontario: the federal seat of the national government. They are protesting Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax scheme. They are also rising up against Trudeau’s lax defense and border control policies. Seven conservative provincial premiers are pushing back against the federal government’s insistence on taking in large numbers of Middle Eastern refugees, but refusing to pick up the costs for this program. 
Throughout the Western World, people are clamoring for the freedom to speak out against Islam, against the aggressive secular agenda invading their schools and the government. In general, they are forcefully denouncing the rogue cult of progressivism. As the taxes and dead bodies pile up, as the degradation of the public square becomes more prominent, the citizens are pushing back.  
Contrast these European uprisings with the United States. Instead of fighting big statism, Americans are fleeing their home state in droves. Californians are in mass exodus, including members of my own family. If they don’t like the blue state bureaucracy, American citizens enjoy the luxury of moving to a red state. And yet, this intra-migration process is hitting a brick wall. Some reliably red states have been trending blue over the last ten years. After Election 2018, progressives are targeting more of them. 
One contact from New Mexico just witnessed this Democratic resurgence. The lone Republican Congressman, Steve Pearce, lost his bid for governor, and his seat flipped blue (likely due to voter fraud, but no one’s fighting it). “I am planning on moving out of here,” she told me. But I had to ask: “Where do you plan to go?” Arizona suffered some Democratic wins. Wisconsin and Michigan will have Democrats installed in statewide offices next year. Republicans still control those state legislatures for now, but for how much longer? Even ruby-red Kansas just elected a Democratic Governor. Another friend (who had relocated to the Sunflower State) expressed shock and disdain, even though he enjoys the much lower cost of living. “Kansas City is getting more liberal now. The cancer is spreading everywhere!” Yesterday, a Townhall columnist wrote a steadied piece on the full-on Democratic takeover of Virginia in the last decade, too. I visited there last yearit felt like Los Angeles, only worse. Americans are finding that there are fewer places where they can flee from state’s oppressive governments. 
Americans better learn the lesson and follow the example of their Yellow Jacket peers: assert your rights in your home states. Running to Texas is not the final answer. Texas is combatting a blue undercurrent already. The seduction of socialism, which gives way to the specter of communism, has possessed the minds of college students there as well as in California, Oregon, and Washington State. Don’t flee, fight back, Americans. It’s time to Make America Great Again, not just find a redder state to retire in.  
The Founding Fathers didn’t pull up stakes and flee west of the Appalachian Mountains when the British Empire exacted higher taxes while denying the American colonists’ equal representation in parliament. If American citizens don’t like what they see happening at the local level or the state level in their home states, they need to start fighting back, because there are fewer places to run to.


No comments: