Monday, January 15, 2018



“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

"Illinois is a state full of illegal aliens.  One in seven Illinoisans are immigrants, with 450,000 official illegals.  One point two million jobs are taken by illegals in Illinois.  This is one of the most heavily invaded states in the Union. Timothy Birdnow

Mitt Romney Uses Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to Attack Donald Trump

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney took to Twitter on Monday morning to attack President Donald Trump, using the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday to suggest that Trump is a racist.

Romney wrote: “The poverty of an aspiring immigrant’s nation of origin is as irrelevant as their race. The sentiment attributed to POTUS is inconsistent w/ America’s history and antithetical to American values. May our memory of Dr. King buoy our hope for unity, greatness, & ‘charity for all.'”

The poverty of an aspiring immigrant’s nation of origin is as irrelevant as their race. The sentiment attributed to POTUS is inconsistent w/ America’s history and antithetical to American values. May our memory of Dr. King buoy our hope for unity, greatness, & “charity for all.”

The former Massachusetts governor was referring to allegations that President Trump had referred to “shithole countries” in a negotiation over immigration policy in the Oval Office last Thursday with a small group of Senators that included Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).
Trump has denied using that term, and Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Frank Purdue (R-GA) have denied hearing it, as has Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who was also present.
The White House said that President Trump was arguing for a merit-based system of immigration policy, as opposed to the existing policies of “chain migration” and the “diversity visa” lottery.
The president was also reportedly defending his administration’s decision to send some El Salvadorans and Haitians, who are in the U.S. due to earthquake disasters, back to their countries of origin after their temporary protected status expires.
Democrats have also used the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday to attack Trump, based on the recent controversy and on past claims that he is a racist.
Speculation has mounted whether Romney would be a friend or foe of President Trump if elected to the Senate.
Romney has a rocky relationship with President Trump. In March 2016, he viciously attacked Trump in a speech in Salt Lake City, Utah — but stopped short of endorsing a rival candidate in the Republican primary. He mended fences with Trump when he aspired to become Secretary of State in the new administration, but has since re-emerged as one of the president’s leading GOP critics, appealing to the remnant of the “NeverTrump” movement.
Last summer, Romney criticized President Trump’s response to violence in Charlottesville, accusing him of moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and those opposing “racism and bigotry” — but without noting that the latter had disrupted a lawful, permitted protest.
Democrats accused Romney himself of racism when he ran for president in 2012, particularly when he accused Barack Obama supporters of voting for “free stuff,” and when he joked that “no one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.”
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

DACA Will Be a Wall around the White House

Walls have a variety of purposes.  In the Soviet Union and East Germany, walls and fences were designed to keep people in, not to keep people out.  Few chose to go "Back to the USSR," as The Beatles sang, other than newlyweds Mr. and Mrs. Bernie Sanders, who honeymooned there.
Walls also keep people out.  Examples include the wall around Vatican City, the one in Israel's West Bank, and the ones around the homes of open borders advocates like Mark Zuckerberg.  Many of the "walls for me but not for thee" virtue-signaling Hollywood elites have walls, fences, and all manner of security measures keeping uninvited guests from invading their domiciles.
How can DACA be a wall?  Not in the way you might think.  If Lindsey Grahamnesty and his fellow congressional amnesty fanboys and fangirls get their way, giving the "DREAMers" citizenship and the right to vote, this will create a wall around the White House.
This wall is not to be confused with the fence around the White House that mischievous sorts like to jump over, embarrassing the Secret Service.  Instead, this wall will keep any Republican from ever living in the White House again.
Where are the 700,000 "DREAMers" in the U.S. living?  And twice the number of illegal immigrants eligible for DACA?  And if they vote, how will they vote?  What does that mean for the Electoral College in the 2020 presidential election?
From the Migration Policy Institute's map of DACA recipients by state andPolitico's election results by state, how might the next presidential election play out if "DREAMers" are able to vote?
2012 study of 2,900 foreign-born naturalized immigrants found that 62 percent identified as Democrats and 25 percent as Republicans.  That's a 2.5-fold difference favoring Democrats.
Pew Research Center study from the same year found that undocumented latino immigrants identified 31 percent Democrat and 4 percent Republican, an eightfold difference.
Suffice it to say that the majority of "DREAMers" would pull the lever for the presidential candidate with the letter D after his name.
Where are DACA recipients living in the U.S.?  Let's also distinguish between actual DACA recipients and those meeting all the criteria to apply.  If DACA recipients are given a pathway to citizenship, it's likely that most or all those eligible will take advantage of American largess and become voting citizens.
The Migration Policy Institute identifies about 690,000 recipients and 1,326,000 eligible.  For this analysis, I will use the numbers for the DACA-eligible, about twice the number of current recipients.
The Washington Post provides a rough approximation of where they live.
Forget large states like California, Illinois, and New York, as these are already solidly blue.  Trump won Texas by around 800,000 votes, while only 182,000 DACA-eligible live in Texas, so that state won't likely flip.
Trump won Arizona by 85,000 votes, with 36,000 DACA-eligible – not an insurmountable margin.  Michigan went for Trump by only 12,000 votes, with 10,000 DACA-eligible.  Easy state to flip.  Wisconsin voters picked Trump by 27,000 votes, with 10,000 DACA-eligible.  Again, easy to flip.
Trump won Florida by 119,000 votes, with 72,000 DACA-eligible.  The small remaining difference is easily surpassed by a good portion of the 73,000 hurricane refugees from Puerto Rico, now living in Florida, voting Democrat.
You get my point.  It won't be difficult to flip a few states from red to blue, painting the Electoral College map mostly blue and keeping a Republican out of the White House for the foreseeable future – all accomplished by legalizing the "DREAMers" and those eligible for DACA.
Going farther is blanket amnesty for all illegals in the U.S. – not a million, but perhaps ten or twenty million.  Enough to turn a solidly red state like Texas blue.  Lights out for a Republican ever winning the presidency after that.
Lastly, if Trump caves on immigration, his core issue, many of his supporters will stay home, amplifying the votes of the "DREAMers" and painting the electoral map a deeper shade of blue.
No wonder Democrats are so eager for DACA amnesty.  Don't listen just to Pelosi and Schumer.  Instead, read what the Center for American Progress (better named the Center for Liberal Progress) circulated in a memo written by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri.  She admitted that the DACA "DREAMers" are "[a] critical component of the Democratic Party's future electoral success."
No kidding.  That's exactly why Ted Kennedy pushed the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, opening American doors to anyone able to get here as well as his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins, plus any other supposed relatives, filling the voter rolls with loyal Democrats for generations.
Legalizing the "DREAMers" will have a similar effect, especially if Congress doesn't end chain migration.
Immigration is one of the primary reasons why Donald Trump is president.  His supporters are understandably nervous about his recent promise that whatever immigration Congress send him, "I will be signing it."
Trump's a smart guy, despite assertions to the contrary in Michael Wolff's book, and knows the importance of dancing with the base who brought him.  I'm sure the Republican leadership in Congress knows this as well and won't allow a lousy bill to reach Trump's desk – meaning one without funding for the wall as well as continuation of chain migration and the green card lottery.
If Trump get what he wants but legalizes the "DREAMers," his road to 270 electoral votes in 2020 may be far more difficult, if not impossible.  If I can see this, I am sure he can, too.  Despite my trepidation over his recent comments, I am content to wait for the final bill to emerge.  "Let's see what happens," as the president likes to say.
Trump has kept his campaign promises thus far, and I suspect that despite Lindsey Grahamnesty's giddiness over a "pathway to citizenship," the president will have the last laugh.  His political future depends on it.
Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on FacebookLinkedIn, and Twitter

January 15, 2018

It's time to sort the good from the bad in the 800,000-person DACA bloc

A study shows that DACA-aged illegals are more likely to commit additional crimes and be jailed than citizens.  With all the news about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program being subject to a deal, this latest bit of news points to a need to start separating good from bad DACA recipients in any amnesty deal for them.
According to the Washington Examiner:
A new report about crimes committed by illegals finds that younger undocumented immigrants [sic; should be "illegal aliens" –ed.] who were eligible for former President Obama's DACA amnesty program commit far more crimes than other immigrants or U.S. citizens.
In unearthing rare data that details the crimes and sentences of illegals in Arizona, the Crime Prevention Research Center reported that immigrants age 15-35, the general population of the 700,000 in Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, "commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens."
The crimes cited in the study are authentic thug-type crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and kidnapping, not the white-collar variety such as Social Security identification theft, which is an even greater subset of violators.
Two caveats should be noted from the report: the study covers only Arizona state, and its conclusions are a nationwide projection from those results.  Also, the study itself covers only DACA-aged youths, not actual verified DACA recipients.
That said, the research was done by the respected John Lott, whose work is known for its rigor.  Meanwhile, any youth of the right age who hasn't applied for DACA would be a fool not to, given its 99% approval rate on applications.  There is reason to think there is merit in Lott's claims.
This points to a problem we see again and again in DACA recipients: for every valedictorian proudly featured in the press among the program's 800,000-strong number, we have far higher numbers of illiterates, underachievers, unassimilated non-English-speakersdropouts, and repeat criminals.
The negotiations in the Congress on a DACA deal with President Trump continuously use the 800,000-strong recipient base as an undifferentiated bloc.  Yet we know there was no differentiation in the approval process, and the valedictorians went into the same bin as the underachievers and the underclass-assimilators.  Most Americans would be fine with allowing the valedictorians and the 900 servicemembers among the 800,000-person bloc as part of a deal, as these people would probably make successful Americans.  Where they draw the line is with gang members, habitual criminals, underachievers, and terrorist sympathizers.
Why anyone would refrain from splitting up the DACA bloc into categories that go well beyond an applicant's age is a mystery to me.  Breaking up the bloc will make a deal for the more deserving of the applicants that much easier if a deal ever comes to pass.




How the original DREAM act was designed to cover 90% of the illegal alien population in the US.

January 12, 2018
Today DACA (Deferred Action-Childhood Arrivals) is a major issue for the Trump administration, with politicians from both parties attempting to persuade President Trump to provide lawful status for the illegal aliens who had been granted temporary lawful status in an ill-conceived and, indeed, illegal program that had been implemented by President Obama, a politically adept manipulator of language and a master of deception.

On December 18th I participated in an interview on Fox News to discuss DACA and the fact that according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) legalizing the estimated population of “Dreamers” would cost an estimated $26 billion. 

On January 9th President Trump conducted a bi-partisan White House meeting to consider a compromise that would provide lawful immigration status for the approximately 800,000 illegal aliens who enrolled in DACA. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, Trump seeks a "bill of love" from Congress for "Dreamers"

The “deal” would require funding a border wall, ending “chain migration” and perhaps, making E-Verify mandatory.  Of course without an adequate number of ICE agents, mandatory E-Verify would be of limited value since unscrupulous employers could simply hire illegal aliens “off the books” and without agents to conduct field investigations these criminally deceptive employment practices would not be discovered.

President Trump’s previous call for hiring an additional 10,000 ICE agents was not mentioned by the participants in the meeting.  This is extremely worrisome.

A lack of effective interior enforcement of our immigration laws, has for decades, undermined the integrity of the immigration system. In fact the 9/11 Commission cited the lack of interior enforcement as a key vulnerability that terrorists, and not only the 9/11 hijackers, had exploited to embed themselves in the U.S. in preparation to carrying out deadly attacks.

DACA was a travesty foisted on America and Americans by the Obama administration, from its inception, was a scam based on lies and false suppositions. Legalizing these 800,000 illegal aliens would, in point of fact, legitimize Obama’s illegal action.

Obama claimed that he was invoking “prosecutorial discretion” when he stood in the White House Rose Garden on June 15, 2012 and announced that “since Congress failed to act” (to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform) he was going to act by creating DACA. But in reality Congress did act: it voted down legislation known as Comprehension Immigration Reform and, in so doing, took an action that is consistent with the role of Congress as established by the U.S. Constitution that created the system of “checks and balances.” 

For Mr. Obama, however, the problem was that Congress did not act the way he wanted it to act.

Two days after that speech in 2012, I wrote an Op-Ed, “Obama Invokes Prosecutorial Discretion to Circumvent Constitution and Congress,” in which I noted that what Obama had referred to as “Prosecutorial Discretion” should, in reality, be referred to as “Prosecutorial Deception.”

Legitimate use of prosecutorial discretion can provide a pragmatic solution to real-world limitations of law enforcement resources in a manner comparable to a triage.  For example, law enforcement officers frequently ignore relatively minor violations of law so that those limited resources can be available to address more serious violations of law.  Consider, for example, the police officer operating speed radar who ignores cars that exceed the speed limit by a small margin, but are being otherwise driven in a safe manner.  This enables the police officer to focus on vehicles that are being driven dangerously.

Under DACA, however, illegal aliens were not ignored to conserve limited resources.  In fact, limited resources were not conserved but were squandered to provide temporary lawful status to a huge number of illegal aliens without legal authority or justification.

Moreover, DACA constituted the de facto creation of law without the legislative process, but by unconstitutional executive fiat.

Let’s now consider the notion of “deferred action,” the foundation upon which DACA was purportedly created.  There are legitimate provisions in the immigration system to provide aliens with “deferred action” when it is a matter of compassion, for humanitarian purposes.  The key word is “deferred.”  What is deferred is the ultimate required departure of non-immigrant aliens.

For example, if a family from another country lawfully came to the United States as non-immigrants for a temporary visit with friends or relatives in the United States and one of the members of the family was injured in an accident or became ill, those aliens could apply for deferred action so that they would not have to leave the United States until the family crisis was resolved.  

As an INS agent I dealt with such cases.  Generally the doctor who was treating the injured or ill family member would provide documentation to immigration authorities to verify the medical situation, with periodic updates. 

As an INS special agent I was responsible for conducting investigations to make certain that applications were not fraudulent.

Generally these aliens would not be granted employment authorization except under the most extraordinary of circumstances if they needed to remain in the United States for a protracted period of time. However, DACA essentially “dropped a net” over 800,000 illegal aliens, not out of humanitarian concerns because of an unforeseen emergency but as a means of achieving a political objective.

Obama claimed that his action was to help young people who were brought to the United States by their parents and, consequently, were the victims of their parents’ actions over which they had no control.

Obama was counting on the fact that Americans are among the most compassionate people in the world, especially where children are concerned.  Media reports furthered this narrative and, to this day, many ill-informed Americans believe that all aliens who participated in DACA were teenagers. But in fact, the age cutoff was actually 31.  These aliens simply needed to claim that they had been brought to the United States prior to their 16th birthdays.  Those aliens today might now be as old as 36 years of age.  DACA should have been called DACCA (Deferred Action- Claimed Childhood Arrivals). 

There were virtually no interviews or field investigations to verify any information or claims contained in the applications.

(The DREAM Act would have allowed aliens as old as 35 years of age to apply to participate in the amnesty that would have been created had the legislation passed.)

It is vital to note that even the term DREAM Act and the derivative term “Dreamers” is hypocritical.  Ever since the administration of Jimmy Carter, the term “Alien” has been eradicated from the immigration debate, not out of supposed “political correctness” but as a means of Orwellian thought control and Newspeak.

However, the “DREAM Act” is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act.  It is maddening that when the imagery of the “American Dream” can be exploited, the term “alien” becomes palatable -- but only when used in conjunction with this bit of Orwellian deception.

If the purpose of the DREAM Act was to help young illegal aliens, why did the politicians and “Gang of Eight” not simply limit it to aliens who had not yet attained the age of 21 and who could provide immigration authorities with their current school transcripts and report cards to verify their status as students in good standing?

What was never discussed in the mainstream media is that the whole point to the DREAM Act, pushed by some members of Congress and particularly the “Gang of Eight,” was to construct a legislated immigration “Trojan Horse.”

The DREAM Act established 35 years of age as the cutoff age for this amnesty because it would have covered an estimated 90% of the illegal alien population in the United States.  Furthermore, without the ability to conduct interviews, let alone field investigations, aliens could easily lie about their identities, their dates of birth and even their dates of entry into the United States.

There would be no way for adjuration officers to refute the claims of the aliens who participated in the program.

The DREAM Act was a carefully disguised version of failed legislation known as Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  

In 2007, after I testified about Comprehensive Immigration Reform before several hearings in the House and Senate, I wrote an Op-Ed for the Washington Times, Immigration bill a ‘No Go' in which I suggested that the legislative disaster be renamed the “Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act” because under that legislation, millions of illegal aliens who had entered the United States surreptitiously and without inspection, would have been provided with lawful status and official identity documents.

This would have violated the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony.

I was gratified when then-Senator Jeff Sessions quoted my Op-Ed from the floor of the U.S. Senate during the contentious floor debate on Comprehensive Immigration Reform on three separate days, in which he shared my concerns and my proposed new name for that legislation.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) created a massive amnesty program that ultimately led to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation.  It has been said that insanity is doing the same things the same way and expecting a different outcome.

As a highly successful real estate magnate, President Trump must especially understand that just as it is unwise to erect a building on a swamp, legislation must be constructed on morally and legally solid ground.

Politicians supporting widespread amnesty for illegal aliens, said Coulter, were motivated by either “corruption or stupidity” in their pursuit to “destroy our country.

Ann Coulter: ‘Let’s Start by Deporting the DREAMers!’


Criminal illegals, tax cheats, sanctuary cities OK'd in Gang of Six immigration deal

by  |  From left, President Donald Trump, accompanied by Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Vice President Mike Pence, Senate Majority Whip Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., and Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., speaks during a meeting on immigration in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, Thursday, Jan. 4, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

A plan to reform immigration and grant amnesty to nearly 700,000 young adults that is being shopped by six senators would waive some criminal convictions, let 300 “sanctuary cities” off the hook and starve Immigration and Customs Enforcement of funds to track down and deport criminal illegals, according to a new analysis of the proposal.
“This proposal is not a serious effort to find common ground with either the majority of congressional Republicans or the president,” according to immigration expert Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.
“It pays only lip service to what is required to achieve the immigration policy improvements that Americans seek, and that they elected Donald Trump to accomplish,” she added in a new analysis released Friday.
She obtained the details of the plan and found several areas that clash with the basic wishes of the White House and promises made by Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“Judging by details obtained by the Center, the aim is actually maximum amnesty, minimum border security and no cuts to legal immigration, and not a good faith effort to reach a deal with either the House of Representatives or the president,” wrote Vaughan.
You can see her full analysis here, but below are some of her key points:
  • Dreamer amnesty would allow waivers for certain criminal convictions that exist under current law, if deemed to be "in the public interest."
  • Applicants for the program would have to pay up on any federal tax liability, if they had a DACA work permit, but not if they worked illegally prior to legalization.
  • The proposal claims to restrict chain migration, by eliminating the category for adult sons and daughters of green card holders, which admits about 26,000 people a year. However, it transfers those numbers to another chain migration category for spouses of green card holders and their children. So there is no net decrease in chain migration at all under this proposal.
  • There is no funding for ICE or interior enforcement, no expansion of E-Verify, nor any provisions to address the broken asylum system, sanctuary cities, the continued influx of illegal families and minors from Central America, visa overstays, an entry-exit system, the backlogged immigration court, illegal employment, or any of the other needs compiled at the president's request prepared by career immigration agency officials.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at

Kris Kobach: Border Surge of Potentially 1M Illegal Aliens ‘Guaranteed’ Following DACA Amnesty

A surge of illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border that could reach up to one million border-crossings is “guaranteed” following a possible amnesty for nearly 800,000 illegal aliens, says Kansas Secretary of State and gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach.

In an interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Sunday, hosted by Breitbart News Political Editor Matt Boyle and Deputy Political Editor Amanda House, Kobach warned President Trump against negotiating a deal wherein illegal aliens shielded from deportation by the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program are given amnesty, saying such a plan would trigger a massive border surge.
KOBACH: And there will be a surge, it is guarenteed. If there is a DACA amnesty, there will be a massive surge of hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million, new illegal aliens.
HOUSE: Right, we saw that in the ’80’s and the ’90’s, as well, following the 1986 amnesty.
KOBACH: That’s exactly right. And as some Breitbart readers may know, if they’ve seen my piece this week, I put some statistics in there. Yeah, that ’86 amnesty, it ended up being for 2.7 million people which was a larger number than was expected by Congress and by President Reagan’s administration when it happened. And the reason its a larger number is its estimated that about 700,000 people came in or applied for the amnesty who were not eligible for it. And so… what happens when you grant amnesty is immediately people flood across the border because they want to falsely claim that they were already here and get the new amnesty or they want to at least get here and wait for the next amnesty.
An amnesty for DACA illegal aliens has the potential to trigger a border surge that could triple the current level of border-crossings, which under President Trump, have ticked back up to Obama-era levels due to border wall construction being stalled in the prototype stage for months.
As the Migration Policy Institute has chronicled, previous border surges from amnesty programs have brought hundreds of thousands across the U.S.-Mexico border:
While the flow of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) has been climbing steadily since 2012, a dramatic surge has taken place in the last six months, with the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas as the principal place of entry. The Border Patrol there has converted entire stations to house unaccompanied minors and families.
According to the Border Patrol, apprehensions of unaccompanied children increased from 16,067 in fiscal year (FY) 2011 to 24,481 in FY 2012 and 38,833 in FY 2013. During the first eight months of FY 2014, 47,017 such children were apprehended by the Border Patrol. If the influx continues apace—and it shows no signs of slowing—the administration predicts that by the end of the fiscal year on September 30, totals could reach 90,000.
Ninety-eight percent of unaccompanied minors currently arriving at the border are from Honduras (28 percent), Mexico (25 percent), Guatemala (24 percent), and El Salvador (21 percent). This breakdown represents a significant shift: prior to 2012, more than 75 percent of UACs were from Mexico.
In recent days, Trump has said that negotiations for a DACA amnesty — that would include cutting legal immigration levels to benefit America’s workers and immediately constructing the border wall — are “probably dead” due to Democrats’ unwillingness to cut legal immigration and bar employers from hiring illegal aliens over U.S. citizens.
Listen to the full Breitbart News Sunday interview here:
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.