Saturday, July 7, 2018

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON - MEXIFORNIA

THE NEXT MEXICAN INVASION IS AT HAND:

"Mexican president candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador called for mass immigration to the United States, declaring it a "human right". We will defend all the (Mexican) invaders in the American," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life, job, welfare, and free medical in the United States."

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/07/mexican-president-andres-manuel-lopez.html

"Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting AMNESTY TO MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added."



tps://www.city-journal.org/html/imagine-theres-no-border-14608.html?utm_source=City+Journal+Update&utm_campaign=9454934415-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_07_07_01_54&utm_medium=email&ut






Imagine There’s No Border

A world without boundaries is a fantasy.
Summer 2016
The Social Order

Borders are in the news as never before. After millions of young, Muslim, and mostly male refugees flooded into the European Union last year from the war-torn Middle East, a popular revolt arose against the so-called Schengen Area agreements, which give free rights of movement within Europe. The concurrent suspension of most E.U. external controls on immigration and asylum rendered the open-borders pact suddenly unworkable. The European masses are not racists, but they now apparently wish to accept Middle Eastern immigrants only to the degree that these newcomers arrive legally and promise to become European in values and outlook—protocols that the E.U. essentially discarded decades ago as intolerant. Europeans are relearning that the continent’s external borders mark off very different approaches to culture and society from what prevails in North Africa or the Middle East.
A similar crisis plays out in the United States, where President Barack Obama has renounced his former opposition to open borders and executive-order amnesties. Since 2012, the U.S. has basically ceased policing its southern border. The populist pushback against the opening of the border with Mexico gave rise to the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump—predicated on the candidate’s promise to build an impenetrable border wall—much as the flood of migrants into Germany fueled opposition to Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Driving the growing populist outrage in Europe and North America is the ongoing elite push for a borderless world. Among elites, borderlessness has taken its place among the politically correct positions of our age—and, as with other such ideas, it has shaped the language we use. The descriptive term “illegal alien” has given way to the nebulous “unlawful immigrant.” This, in turn, has given way to “undocumented immigrant,” “immigrant,” or the entirely neutral “migrant”—a noun that obscures whether the individual in question is entering or leaving. Such linguistic gymnastics are unfortunately necessary. Since an enforceable southern border no longer exists, there can be no immigration law to break in the first place.
Today’s open-borders agenda has its roots not only in economic factors—the need for low-wage workers who will do the work that native-born Americans or Europeans supposedly will not—but also in several decades of intellectual ferment, in which Western academics have created a trendy field of “borders discourse.” What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs, methods of marginalization designed by those in power, mostly to stigmatize and oppress the “other”—usually the poorer and less Western—who arbitrarily ended up on the wrong side of the divide. “Where borders are drawn, power is exercised,” as one European scholar put it. This view assumes that where borders are notdrawn, power is not exercised—as if a million Middle Eastern immigrants pouring into Germany do not wield considerable power by their sheer numbers and adroit manipulation of Western notions of victimization and grievance politics. Indeed, Western leftists seek political empowerment by encouraging the arrival of millions of impoverished migrants.
Dreams of a borderless world are not new, however. The biographer and moralist Plutarch claimed in his essay “On Exile” that Socrates had once asserted that he was not just an Athenian but instead “a citizen of the cosmos.” In later European thought, Communist ideas of universal labor solidarity drew heavily on the idea of a world without borders. “Workers of the world, unite!” exhorted Marx and Engels. Wars broke out, in this thinking, only because of needless quarreling over obsolete state boundaries. The solution to this state of endless war, some argued, was to eliminate borders in favor of transnational governance. H. G. Wells’s prewar science-fiction novel The Shape of Things to Come envisioned borders eventually disappearing as elite transnational polymaths enforced enlightened world governance. Such fictions prompt fads in the contemporary real world, though attempts to render borders unimportant—as, in Wells’s time, the League of Nations sought to do—have always failed. Undaunted, the Left continues to cherish the vision of a borderless world as morally superior, a triumph over artificially imposed difference.
Yet the truth is that borders do not create difference—they reflect it. Elites’ continued attempts to erase borders are both futile and destructive.



H. G. Wells’s science-fiction novel "The Shape of Things to Come"; envisioned a borderless world run by transnational superelites. (KEYSTONE-FRANCE/GAMMA-KEYSTONE/GETTY IMAGES)
H. G. Wells’s science-fiction novel "The Shape of Things to Come" envisioned a borderless world run by transnational superelites. (KEYSTONE-FRANCE/GAMMA-KEYSTONE/GETTY IMAGES)

Borders—and the fights to keep or change them—are as old as agricultural civilization. In ancient Greece, most wars broke out over border scrubland. The contested upland eschatia offered little profit for farming but possessed enormous symbolic value for a city-state to define where its own culture began and ended. The self-acclaimed “citizen of the cosmos” Socrates nonetheless fought his greatest battle as a parochial Athenian hoplite in the ranks of the phalanx at the Battle of Delium—waged over the contested borderlands between Athens and Thebes. Fifth-century Athenians such as Socrates envisioned Attica as a distinct cultural, political, and linguistic entity, within which its tenets of radical democracy and maritime-based imperialism could function quite differently from the neighboring oligarchical agrarianism at Thebes. Attica in the fourth century BC built a system of border forts to protect its northern boundary.
Throughout history, the trigger points of war have traditionally been such borderlands—the methoria between Argos and Sparta, the Rhine and Danube as the frontiers of Rome, or the Alsace-Lorraine powder keg between France and Germany. These disputes did not always arise, at least at first, as efforts to invade and conquer a neighbor. They were instead mutual expressions of distinct societies that valued clear-cut borders—not just as matters of economic necessity or military security but also as a means of ensuring that one society could go about its unique business without the interference and hectoring of its neighbors.
Advocates for open borders often question the historical legitimacy of such territorial boundaries. For instance, some say that when “Alta” California declared its autonomy from Mexico in 1846, the new border stranded an indigenous Latino population in what would shortly become the 31st of the United States. “We didn’t cross the border,” these revisionists say. “The border crossed us.” In fact, there were probably fewer than 10,000 Spanish-speakers residing in California at the time. Thus, almost no contemporary Californians of Latino descent can trace their state residency back to the mid-nineteenth century. They were not “crossed” by borders. And north–south demarcation, for good or evil, didn’t arbitrarily separate people.

What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs.

The history of borders has been one of constant recalibration, whether dividing up land or unifying it. The Versailles Treaty of 1919 was idealistic not for eliminating borders but for drawing new ones. The old borders, established by imperial powers, supposedly caused World War I; the new ones would better reflect, it was hoped, ethnic and linguistic realities, and thus bring perpetual peace. But the world created at Versailles was blown apart by the Third Reich. German chancellor Adolf Hitler didn’t object to the idea of borders per se; rather, he sought to remake them to encompass all German-speakers—and later so-called Aryans—within one political entity, under his absolute control. Many nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century German intellectuals and artists—among them the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, historian Oswald Spengler, and composer Richard Wagner—agreed that the Roman Empire’s borders marked the boundaries of civilization. Perversely, however, they celebrated their status as the unique “other” that had been kept out of a multiracial Western civilization. Instead, Germany mythologized itself as racially exceptional, precisely because, unlike other Western European nations, it was definable not only by geography or language but also by its supposed racial purity. The fairy-tale origins of the German Volk were traced back before the fifth century AD and predicated on the idea that Germanic tribes for centuries were kept on the northern and eastern sides of the Danube and Rhine Rivers. Thus, in National Socialist ideology, early German, white-skinned, Aryan noble savages paradoxically avoided a mongrelizing and enervating assimilation into the civilized Roman Empire—an outcome dear to the heart of Nazi crackpot racial theorist Alfred Rosenberg (The Myth of the Twentieth Century) and the autodidact Adolf Hitler. World War II was fought to restore the old Eastern European borders that Hitler and Mussolini had erased—but it ended with the creation of entirely new ones, reflecting the power and presence of Soviet continental Communism, enforced by the huge Russian Red Army.
Few escape petty hypocrisy when preaching the universal gospel of borderlessness. Barack Obama has caricatured the building of a wall on the U.S. southern border as nonsensical, as if borders are discriminatory and walls never work. Obama, remember, declared in his 2008 speech in Berlin that he wasn’t just an American but also a “citizen of the world.” Yet the Secret Service is currently adding five feet to the White House fence—presumably on the retrograde logic that what is inside the White House grounds is different from what is outside and that the higher the fence goes (“higher and stronger,” the Secret Service promises), the more of a deterrent it will be to would-be trespassers. If Obama’s previous wall was six feet high, the proposed 11 feet should be even better.
In 2011, open-borders advocate Antonio Villaraigosa became the first mayor in Los Angeles history to build a wall around the official mayoral residence. His un-walled neighbors objected, first, that there was no need for such a barricade and, second, that it violated a city ordinance prohibiting residential walls higher than four feet. But Villaraigosa apparently wished to emphasize the difference between his home and others (or between his home and the street itself), or was worried about security, or saw a new wall as iconic of his exalted office.
“You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world,” Secretary of State John Kerry recently enthused to the graduating class at Northeastern University. He didn’t sound envious, though, perhaps because Kerry himself doesn’t live in such a world. If he did, he never would have moved his 76-foot luxury yacht from Boston Harbor across the state border to Rhode Island in order to avoid $500,000 in sales taxes and assorted state and local taxes.
While elites can build walls or switch zip codes to insulate themselves, the consequences of their policies fall heavily on the nonelites who lack the money and influence to navigate around them. The contrast between the two groups—Peggy Noonan described them as the “protected” and the “unprotected”—was dramatized in the presidential campaign of Jeb Bush. When the former Florida governor called illegal immigration from Mexico “an act of love,” his candidacy was doomed. It seemed that Bush had the capital and influence to pick and choose how the consequences of his ideas fell upon himself and his family—in a way impossible for most of those living in the southwestern United States. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg offers another case study. The multibillionaire advocates for a fluid southern border and lax immigration enforcement, but he has also stealthily spent $30 million to buy up four homes surrounding his Palo Alto estate. They form a sort of no-man’s-land defense outside his own Maginot Line fence, presumably designed against hoi polloi who might not share Zuckerberg’s taste or sense of privacy. Zuckerberg’s other estate in San Francisco is prompting neighbors’ complaints because his security team takes up all the best parking spaces. Walls and border security seem dear to the heart of the open-borders multibillionaire—when it’s his wall, his border security.
This self-serving dynamic operates beyond the individual level as well. “Sanctuary cities,” for instance, proclaim amnesty for illegal aliens within their municipal boundaries. But proud as they are of their cities’ disdain for federal immigration law, residents of these liberal jurisdictions wouldn’t approve of other cities nullifying other federal laws. What would San Franciscans say if Salt Lake City declared the Endangered Species Act null and void within its city limits, or if Carson City unilaterally suspended federal background checks and waiting periods for handgun purchases? Moreover, San Francisco and Los Angeles do believe in clearly delineated borders when it comes to their right to maintain a distinct culture, with distinct rules and customs. Their self-righteousness aside, sanctuary cities neither object to the idea of borders nor to their enforcement—only to the notion that protecting the southern U.S. border is predicated on the very same principles.
More broadly, ironies and contradictions abound in the arguments and practices of open-borders advocates. In academia, even modern historians of the ancient world, sensing the mood and direction of larger elite culture, increasingly rewrite the fall of fifth-century AD Rome, not as a disaster of barbarians pouring across the traditional fortified northern borders of the Rhine and Danube—the final limites that for centuries kept out perceived barbarism from classical civilization—but rather as “late antiquity,” an intriguing osmosis of melting borders and cross-fertilization, leading to a more diverse and dynamic intersection of cultures and ideas. Why, then, don’t they cite Vandal treatises on medicine, Visigothic aqueducts, or Hunnish advances in dome construction that contributed to this rich new culture of the sixth or seventh century AD? Because these things never existed.
Academics may now caricature borders, but key to their posturing is either an ignorance of, or an unwillingness to address, why tens of millions of people choose to cross borders in the first place, leaving their homelands, language fluency, or capital—and at great personal risk. The answer is obvious, and it has little to do with natural resources or climate: migration, as it was in Rome during the fifth century AD, or as it was in the 1960s between mainland China and Hong Kong—and is now in the case of North and South Korea—has usually been a one-way street, from the non-West to the West or its Westernized manifestations. People walk, climb, swim, and fly across borders, secure in the knowledge that boundaries mark different approaches to human experience, with one side usually perceived as more successful or inviting than the other.
Western rules that promote a greater likelihood of consensual government, personal freedom, religious tolerance, transparency, rationalism, an independent judiciary, free-market capitalism, and the protection of private property combine to offer the individual a level of prosperity, freedom, and personal security rarely enjoyed at home. As a result, most migrants make the necessary travel adjustments to go westward—especially given that Western civilization, uniquely so, has usually defined itself by culture, not race, and thus alone is willing to accept and integrate those of different races who wish to share its protocols.
Many unassimilated Muslims in the West often are confused about borders and assume that they can ignore Western jurisprudence and yet rely on it in extremis. Today’s migrant from Morocco might resent the bare arms of women in France, or the Pakistani new arrival in London might wish to follow sharia law as he knew it in Punjab. But implicit are two unmentionable constants: the migrant most certainly does not wish to return to face sharia law in Morocco or Pakistan. Second, if he had his way, institutionalizing his native culture into that of his newly adopted land, he would eventually flee the results—and once again likely go somewhere else, for the same reasons that he left home in the first place. London Muslims may say that they demand sharia law on matters of religion and sex, but such a posture assumes the unspoken condition that the English legal system remains supreme, and thus, as Muslim minorities, they will not be thrown out of Britain as religious infidels—as Christians are now expelled from the Middle East.
Even the most adamant ethnic chauvinists who want to erase the southern border assume that some sort of border is central to their own racial essence. The National Council of La Raza (“the race”; Latin, radix) is the largest lobbying body for open borders with Mexico. Yet Mexico itself supports the idea of boundaries. Mexico City may harp about alleged racism in the United States directed at its immigrants, but nothing in U.S. immigration law compares with Mexico’s 1974 revision of its “General Law of Population” and its emphasis on migrants not upsetting the racial makeup of Mexico—euphemistically expressed as preserving “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” In sum, Mexican nationals implicitly argue that borders, which unfairly keep them out of the United States, are nonetheless essential to maintaining their own pure raza.

Migration has usually been a one-way street, from the non-West to the West or its Westernized manifestations.

Mexico, in general, furiously opposes enforcing the U.S.–Mexican border and, in particular, the proposed Trump wall that would bar unauthorized entry into the U.S.—not on any theory of borders discourse but rather because Mexico enjoys fiscal advantages in exporting its citizens northward, whether in ensuring nearly $30 billion in remittances, creating a powerful lobby of expatriates in the U.S., or finding a safety valve for internal dissent. Note that this view does not hold when it comes to accepting northward migrations of poorer Central Americans. In early 2016, Mexico ramped up its border enforcement with Guatemala, adding more security forces, and rumors even circulated of a plan to erect occasional fences to augment the natural barriers of jungle and rivers. Apparently, Mexican officials view poorer Central Americans as quite distinct from Mexicans—and thus want to ensure that Mexico remains separate from a poorer Guatemala.
When I wrote an article titled “Do We Want Mexifornia?” for City Journal ’s Spring 2002 issue, I neither invented the word “Mexifornia” nor intended it as a pejorative. Instead, I expropriated the celebratory term from Latino activists, both in the academy and in ethnic gangs in California prisons. In Chicano studies departments, the fusion of Mexico and California was envisioned as a desirable and exciting third-way culture. Mexifornia was said to be arising within 200 to 300 miles on either side of an ossified Rio Grande border. Less clearly articulated were Mexifornia’s premises: millions of Latinos and mestizos would create a new ethnic zone, which, for some mysterious reason, would also enjoy universities, sophisticated medical services, nondiscrimination laws, equality between the sexes, modern housing, policing, jobs, commerce, and a judiciary—all of which would make Mexifornia strikingly different from what is currently found in Mexico and Central America.
When Latino youths disrupt a Donald Trump rally, they often wave Mexican flags or flash placards bearing slogans such as “Make America Mexico Again.” But note the emotional paradox: in anger at possible deportation, undocumented aliens nonsensically wave the flag of the country that they most certainly do not wish to return to, while ignoring the flag of the nation in which they adamantly wish to remain. Apparently, demonstrators wish to brand themselves with an ethnic cachet but without sacrificing the advantages that being an American resident has over being a Mexican citizen inside Mexico. If no borders existed between California and Mexico, then migrants in a few decades might head to Oregon, even as they demonstrated in Portland to “Make Oregon into California.”
Removing borders in theory, then, never seems to match expectations in fact, except in those rare occasions when nearly like societies exist side by side. No one objects to a generally open Canadian border because passage across it, numbers-wise, is roughly identical in either direction—and Canadians and Americans share a language and similar traditions and standard of living, along with a roughly identical approach to democracy, jurisprudence, law enforcement, popular culture, and economic practice. By contrast, weakening demarcated borders between diverse peoples has never appealed to the citizens of distinct nations. Take even the most vociferous opponents of a distinguishable and enforceable border, and one will observe a disconnect between what they say and do—given the universal human need to circumscribe, demarcate, and protect one’s perceived private space.
Again, the dissipation of national borders is possible only between quite similar countries, such as Canada and the U.S. or France and Belgium, or on those few occasions when a supranational state or empire can incorporate different peoples by integrating, assimilating, and intermarrying tribes of diverse religions, languages, and ethnicities into a common culture—and then, of course, protect them with distinct and defensible external borders. But aside from Rome before the fourth century AD and America of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, few societies have been able to achieve E pluribus unum. Napoleon’s transnational empire didn’t last 20 years. Britain never tried to create a holistic overseas body politic in the way that, after centuries of strife, it had forged the English-speaking United Kingdom. The Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian Empires all fell apart after World War I, in a manner mimicked by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1980s and 1990s. Rwanda and Iraq don’t reflect the meaninglessness of borders but the desire of distinct peoples to redraw colonial lines to create more logical borders to reflect current religious, ethnic, and linguistic realities. When Ronald Reagan thundered at the Brandenburg Gate, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” he assumed that by 1987, German-speakers on both sides of the Berlin Wall were more alike than not and in no need of a Soviet-imposed boundary inside Germany. Both sides preferred shared consensual government to Communist authoritarianism. Note that Reagan did not demand that Western nations dismantle their own borders with the Communist bloc.
“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” Robert Frost famously wrote, “That wants it down.” True, but the poet concedes in his “Mending Wall” that in the end, he accepts the logic of his crustier neighbor: “He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’ ” From my own experience in farming, two issues—water and boundaries—cause almost all feuds with neighbors. As I write, I’m involved in a border dispute with a new neighbor. He insists that the last row of his almond orchard should be nearer to the property line than is mine. That way, he can use more of my land as common space to turn his equipment than I will use of his land. I wish that I could afford to erect a wall between us.
The end of borders, and the accompanying uncontrolled immigration, will never become a natural condition—any more than sanctuary cities, unless forced by the federal government, will voluntarily allow out-of-state agencies to enter their city limits to deport illegal aliens, or Mexico will institutionalize free entry into its country from similarly Spanish-speaking Central American countries.
Borders are to distinct countries what fences are to neighbors: means of demarcating that something on one side is different from what lies on the other side, a reflection of the singularity of one entity in comparison with another. Borders amplify the innate human desire to own and protect property and physical space, which is impossible to do unless it is seen—and can be so understood—as distinct and separate. Clearly delineated borders and their enforcement, either by walls and fences or by security patrols, won’t go away because they go to the heart of the human condition—what jurists from Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment called meum et tuum, mine and yours. Between friends, unfenced borders enhance friendship; among the unfriendly, when fortified, they help keep the peace.
Top Photo: The ruins of a boundary fortress designed to separate Athens from Thebes; in ancient Greece, most wars broke out over territorial disputes. (HERVÉ CHAMPOLLION/AKG-IMAGES /THE IMAGE WORKS)



Billionaire Mexicans tell their poor to JUMP U.S. OPEN BORDERS and LOOT THE STUPID GRINGO… and loot they do!
Billions of dollars are sucked out of America from Mexico’s looting!

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

*

MICHELE MALKIN

Understanding LA RAZA / UNIDOSus: The U.S. tax dollar funded Mexican fascist party which is the fastest growing political party in America

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/07/michelle-malkin-understanding-us-funded.html

Only in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."

*


Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag

 

*

PAUL KRUGMAN

The disintegration of California, a Mexican satellite welfare state of poverty, crime and high taxes

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/04/paul-krugman-look-at-california-under.html

"Chairman of the DNC Keith Ellison was even spotted wearing a shirt stating, "I don't believe in borders" written in Spanish.

According to a new CBS news poll, 63 percent of Americans in competitive congressional districts think those crossing illegally should be immediately deported or arrested.  This is undoubtedly contrary to the views expressed by the Democratic Party.

Their endgame is open borders, which has become evident over the last eight years.  Don't for one second let them convince you otherwise." Evan Berryhill Twitter @EvBerryhill.

 


MEXICO'S PROPOSAL TO SOLVE EXPANDING POVERTY: Export the poor, criminal and anchor baby breeding classes to loot America

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

“Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p09s02-coop.html

The following is a partial list of politicians that are La Raza members working for open borders, amnesty (illegal Mexicans are not interested in citizenship) and no wall. The ultimate goal of Mexico is to continue successfully using the United States as their welfare system, cut a deal whereby the illegals can hop the border, give birth, pillage, make their pesos and then return home.  DAVID SIROTA.com
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
What will America stand for in 2050?

The US should think long and hard about the high number of Latino immigrants.
By Lawrence Harrison

It's not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs as unemployment approaches 10 percent or the number of uninsured straining the quality of healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.


The political realities of the rapidly growing Latino population are such that Mr. Obama may be the last president who can avert the permanent, vast underclass implied by the current Census Bureau projection for 2050. 

Experts See Little in Mexican Presidential Candidates’ Proposals to Solve Expanding Poverty



By Mark Browne | June 14, 2018 | 10:43 PM EDT


Left-wing candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is leading in the polls. (Screen capture: YouTube)
Mexico City (CNSNews.com) – Growing poverty affecting the lives of millions of Mexican citizens is unlikely to be solved by proposals offered by candidates running for president in the July 1 election, experts contend.
The leading candidate, leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has promised to provide a monthly stipend to young university graduates who can’t find work.
A conservative rival, Ricardo Anaya, has proposed to raise the country’s minimum wage from $4.28 US to $9.15 per day.
But experts argue their ideas are unlikely to solve Mexico’s growing poverty because the proposals don’t address the country’s massive informal labor market where workers don’t have access to training, career advancement and benefits including government paid healthcare and social security.
“You have this huge portion of the economy that is informal, workers and small companies that operate outside the formal channels,” said Monica de Bolle of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Brazil has reduced the size of its informal labor force by half since the 1990s to 30 percent.
But some 60 percent of Mexico’s workers still work in the informal labor market, lacking the benefits of a formal job.
While Mexico has been successful at opening up its economy to free trade and foreign investment, its high poverty rates and informal labor sector make it a “laggard” in Latin America.
“To me, this is the issue to address in Mexico,” de Bolle said.
Millions of Mexicans have fallen into poverty in recent years, according to a report recently released by the government’s National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy.
The number of Mexicans suffering “extreme poverty” decreased by 2.9 million, to 7.6 percent of the population between 2008 and 2016.
But the number in “moderate poverty” grew by 6.8 million, to 35.9 percent of the population.
As a result, overall poverty increased in Mexico by 3.9 million during the period, according to the report’s findings posted to the website of the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness (IMCO).
The relationship between informal work and poverty is very high, according to Juan Pablo Castañon Castañon, president of the business advocacy group Consejo Coordinador Empresarial.
States in Mexico with the largest percentage of informal employment suffer the highest poverty rates, he said at a press conference last month.
Mexico needs to create more formal employment and enact labor reforms that should include the removal of the 2 percent tax on formal employment salaries, he said.
Candidates in the presidential election have failed to put forward “serious” and “viable” proposals to solve the informal labor market problem, Castañon said.
IMCO analyst Ana Martinez Gutierrez, agreed, noting that the majority of anti-poverty proposals offered by the presidential candidates don’t address the link between poverty and the informal labor market.
Proposals offered by Lopez Obrador include providing a monthly stipend to 2.3 million young Mexicans between the ages of 20 and 25 who have graduated from university but can’t find work. The idea is to provide incentives that will make it less likely they could turn to criminal activity for an income.
Lopez Obrador has also proposed offering a monthly scholarship for students from poor families who stay in high school.
His ideas, however, are “similar to what we have seen in the past 20 years,” Martinez said. It would be difficult to cover the cost of the programs, she said, noting that “no one is proposing to increase taxes.”
Anaya of the conservative National Action Party (PAN) is running in an alliance with several leftist parties, and has proposed to make payments to families in extreme poverty as well as to raise the minimum wage.
José Antonio Meade, representing the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), would continue existing social assistance programs aimed at helping the elderly and poor families and children.
Martinez said the risk is that Mexico will continue with anti-poverty policies that aren’t solving the problem.
“The problem with poverty in Mexico is low salaries, so no matter what social programs you have, you still have to address the low wages. Social programs may not address this.”
Chiapas, Oaxaca, Veracruz, Guerrero, Puebla, Michoacán, and Tlaxcala are the poorest states in Mexico and have the highest number of informal laborers.
Martinez said the problem lies in the labor market. It is evident, she said, that Mexico isn’t going to be able to lower its poverty rate without creating better employment.

Che Guevara's boiling contempt for Mexicans – and AMLO's love for Che




Nobody had a greater loathing for Mexicans than the left's much-vaunted Argentine Castroite "revolutionary," Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
"Mexicans are mostly a rabble of illiterate Indians" – that's how the great Che summed that nation's people up.  Guevara makes President Trump with his controversial remarks about individual Mexicans who commit crimes look like a piker.  Guevara hated all of them.
So why the heck is Mexico's socialist president-elect, Andrés Manuel López-Obrador, so eager to suck up to this Argentine thug?
That's the finding of the great writer Humberto Fontova, who dug up some of the details about AMLO's grotesque fascination with this loathsome bounder associated with the romance of the Cuban revolution.  He didn't find a pretty picture.
Turns out AMLO, as he is known, actually named his kid after the Beast of el paredón, the latter being the walls Cuban peasants were lined up against and shot dead at by Guevara himself and his Marxist minions.  Guevara got his rocks off on that kind of work, because he was believed to be a psychopath.
Fontova found this tidbit from last year:
"We have a son named Jesus Ernesto.  The first name is for Jesus Christ and the second for Ernesto Che Guevara ... an exemplary revolutionary who gave his life for his ideals[.] ... Fidel Castro is a giant.  He maintained Cuba as sovereign and free[.] ... Yes, he (Donald Trump) stokes racism[.] ... Trump shouldn't forget Mexico is an independent country. ... No border walls and no chasing our fellow countrymen who migrated to the United States."  (Andrés Manuel López-Obrador in an interview with Univision's Jorge Ramos.)
So here we have a guy who hated Mexicans and now the Mexican president-elect, who supposedly represents all of those Guevara-loathed Mexicans, naming his kid after him.
It suggests that he, too, loathes Mexicans.  Would that explain why he wants to ship so many of them out of there as "a human right"?
What we have here is not just the Chicano-Mexican leftist romance of Che, as Fontova notes in his piece.  We also see a weird desire to "change" the native country from what it is to something different, in the name of serving far-left ideals.  Obama had that hankering, too, in the U.S., and to many on the right, it was obvious that he, too, hated his country.  Wasn't it a coincidence that the Obama campaign had Che Guevara banners on its walls?  Or that he posed gladly with a mural of Che Guevara on his first trip to Cuba?
Now we have AMLO actually naming his kid after Che.  Che hated Mexico, and he most certainly hated the U.S.
What a grotesque spectacle to see socialist leaders of these countries sucking up to such a hater.


Should We Invade Mexico?

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/07/05/should-we-invade-mexico-n2497140?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky2

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
  
One fact a lot of Americans forget is that our country is located right up against a socialist failed state that is promising to descend even further into chaos – not California, the other one. And the Mexicans, having reached the bottom of the hole they have dug for themselves, just chose to keep digging by electing a new leftist presidente who wants to surrender to the cartels and who thinks that Mexicans have some sort of hitherto unknown “human right” to sneak into the United States and demographically reconquer it. There’s a Spanish phrase that describes his ideology, and one of the words is toro.





.... it's only going to get worse!


THE LA RAZA INVASION:

The Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration floods the market with foreign laborspikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.   NEIL MUNRO


"Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador 

(AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States[,] 

...declaring it a "human right" for all North Americans."


"[W]e will defend all the migrants in the American continent and 

all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that 

immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United 

States." OF COURSE MEXICO HAS A DIFFERENT TUNED TO SING FOR ITS OWN ILLEGALS!



"Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting amnesty to Mexican drug cartels. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added."

One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has 

gone to the U.S. The National Review reported 

that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on 

incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now 

add hundreds of billions for welfare and 

remittances!  MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for 


the AMERICAN THINKER.COM

This means that the crimes of the past six years, 

including the disappearance and presumed murder 

of the 43 Ayotzinapa teaching students, along with 

countless other massacres by state security forces, 

not to mention the wholesale corruption which 

AMLO has made the centerpiece of his campaign, 

will go unpunished.


Mark Levin:

‘Unbridled Immigration, Legal and Illegal, Is Taking the Country Down’

This annual income for an impoverished American family is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 in federal funds which are spent on each unaccompanied minor border crosser.

study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER


MEXICO’S BIGGEST EXPORT TO AMERICA… POVERTY, CRIMINALS, ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS FOR WELFARE and HEROIN

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

“Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p09s02-coop.html

The following is a partial list of politicians that are La Raza members working for open borders, amnesty (illegal Mexicans are not interested in citizenship) and no wall. The ultimate goal of Mexico is to continue successfully using the United States as their welfare system, cut a deal whereby the illegals can hop the border, give birth, pillage, make their pesos and then return home.  DAVID SIROTA.com

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR


What will America stand for in 2050?

The US should think long and hard about the high number of Latino immigrants.
By Lawrence Harrison

It's not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs as unemployment approaches 10 percent or the number of uninsured straining the quality of healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.


Mexico: Lopez-Obrador's bizarre statement


Down in Mexico, the voters are getting ready to cast a ballot in the next two weeks.  In other words, the rhetoric is getting a little crazy.
Andrés Manuel López-Obrador's latest rant is about as crazy as it gets:
This is what AMLO said:
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a "human right" for all North Americans.  "And soon, very soon – after the victory of our movement – we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."
He then declared it as "a human right we will defend," eluniversal.com reports.  While the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner.
Now, let's analyze what he said.
First, how would any of this help Mexico?  My serious Mexican friends tell me they'd rather find prosperity and jobs in their country.  Telling people to go north is another way of saying that AMLO's policies will not help Mexico keep Mexicans.  Believe it or not, most Mexicans would rather stay home, or at least that's what they tell me.
Second, is AMLO proposing to change Mexico's rigid immigration laws?  Is he going to open Mexico's southern border and allow people in?  How does AMLO define a "migrant"?

Third, does he believe that the U.S. is just going to sit back and watch Mexicans cross the border?
The bad news is that AMLO's remarks are irresponsible and not helpful.  The good news is that he may be getting desperate, sensing that Mr. Anaya is gaining on him.
PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.


Massive victory for Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexican elections

By Rafael Azul
2 July 2018
Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the leader of the Movement for National Reconstruction (Morena), was elected President of Mexico yesterday by a massive margin amid high voter turnout. His two main opponents, José Antonio Meade (Institutional Revolutionary Party, PRI) and Ricardo Anaya (Together for México coalition, which includes the National Action Party, PAN, and the Party of the Democratic Revolution, PRD) conceded early yesterday evening.
Though full results will not be known until later on Monday, exit polls give López Obrador between 43 and 49 percent of the vote, ahead of Meade, who obtained between 22 and 26 percent of the vote, and Anaya with 23 to 27 percent of the vote. Other exit polls have López Obrador winning over 50 percent.
Other Morena candidates also appear likely to win, including Claudia Sheinbaum, the Morena candidate for Mayor of Mexico City, ending 21 years of PRD control. Morena also reportedly will win the governorships of the states of Morelia, Tabasco and Chiapas.
A record number of voters cast their ballots. Voters waited for hours at their polling stations and by noon over fifty percent of those eligible had already voted. By the end of the electoral process, seventy percent had voted, a historic turnout.
The results show a collapse in support for the main parties of the Mexican bourgeoisie in the face of widespread hostility to inequality, state-sanctioned violence, the militarization of society. The PRI and PRD were devastated by the results.
Exit polls from the legislative elections show the Morena-led alliance, which also includes the Christian right-wing Social Encounter Party (PES) and the Workers Party (PT), with above 50 percent of federal deputies. According to unofficial exit poll results, the PT won between 64 and 75 seats—nearly double the PRI’s expected total (between 37 and 47 seats). The PAN won between 63 and 76 seats, and the PRD between 33 and 43 seats. Morena is expected to win between 127 and 142 seats. If these results hold, the PRI will have lost three-quarters of its current seats in the chamber of deputies.
The projected results of the PT—a party with Maoist origins—would be particularly notable if they hold. The PT currently has zero seats in the chamber of deputies (though it has 19 of 128 seats in the Senate). In a statement yesterday, López Obrador said he cast his presidential vote symbolically for Rosario Ibarra de Piedra, former candidate for the Pabloite Workers Revolutionary Party (PRT) and now a PT member.
The candidates of the parties opposing Morena and López Obrador were conciliatory in their concession speeches, indicating an intention on the part of the ruling class to accept López Obrador’s election. The bourgeois press has lauded the election as “a victory for democracy.”
Nevertheless, the vote was marred with several hundred incidents of violence and disappearances.
As the polls were about to open, Flora Reséndiz González, 49, an activist of the PT, was assassinated at her home in Contepec, Michoacán. Reséndiz died in the hospital at 6:30 a.m. Her death added to the 138 candidates killed during the election campaign in Mexico. PT leader Alberto Anaya Gutiérrez condemned the killing and called for an investigation: “We are profoundly saddened by the death of our beloved comrade,” declared Anaya, adding that this and other killings are symptoms of “social decomposition.”
The killing of candidates has been a feature of this campaign. It is blamed on local drug gangs that get to decide with impunity which candidate is not acceptable to them. On the day of the election there were also reports from the states of Chiapas, Veracruz and Mexico of the destruction of polling stations, armed gunmen in the open forcing voters to vote and instructing them on how to vote. In Veracruz, in an incident seemingly unrelated to the voting, two men waiting in line were kidnapped and whisked away.
Polls opened at 7:00 a.m. National Election Electoral Institute head Lorenzo Córdova indicated that there were 156,807 polling stations around the country and that only 4 would not open. Some 89 million voters were eligible to vote, half of which are under forty years old. Thirteen million are first-time voters.
All in all, more than 3,400 posts are being determined by the vote. In addition to electing a president, Mexican voters also voted to fill 500 seats in the lower house of Congress, and 128 senatorial seats.
The massive turnout reflects the anger and frustration of the Mexican working class. In addition to outrage over two hundred thousand killings and tens of thousands of disappearances over the last twelve years, there is mass anger over the interrelated issues of increasing poverty, inequality, and widespread government corruption and impunity for criminal acts.
A business elite, allied with the ruling PRI, in league with the PAN and PRD, is widely hated. The collapse of the PRI is particularly significant, as the party has exercised its domination over the country’s political system for nearly a century, with the exception of two PAN presidencies from 2000-2012.
Popular anger has fed support for López Obrador, particularly among young voters, who have repeatedly shown that they have no confidence in the traditional parties. An estimate based on social media gives López Obrador 51 percent of the youth vote, followed by 24 percent for the PRI’s Meade and 14 percent for Anaya of the PAN coalition.
Protest rallies took place at special voting stations, set up for those voters that could not get to their assigned locations. Many of them ran out of ballots, as voters demanded their democratic right to vote.
López Obrador, long depicted as a “leftist,” who fell short of winning the presidency in his 2006 and 2012 elections, ran a pro-corporate campaign. Its main purpose was to convince the Mexican and American ruling classes that his election would not impinge upon private profit or capitalist property relations.


Taking Andrés Manuel López Obrador at His Word 

Is it also a 'human right' for Central Americans to migrate to Mexico? 

By Dan Cadman 
CIS Immigration Blog, June 28, 2018
 
There is no doubt that the words will resonate with many Mexicans who look on history quite differently than we do, and see the loss of large swaths of what is now the U.S. southwest, but was once part of the Mexican "empire", as a giant land grab, a theft. There is even a name given to the desire to retake these lands: the reconquista (reconquest). Needless to say, reconquest could occur by armed means, which would be near suicidal for Mexico to contemplate given U.S. military might, or, just as Islam preaches, lands can be taken by massive resettlement. 


This may seem fantastic to U.S. eyes and ears, but it is serious business for many south of our border, and even for some within the United States. YouTube even hosts a video titled "México La Reconquista – Aztlán", put together by the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán. I don't intend to fan the flames of xenophobia or conspiracy theory by pointing this out, but cannot help wonder whether López Obrador himself isn't subtly doing his best to stir the pot. 
Meantime, presuming he wins the presidency, it will be interesting to see whether he applies his words to his own land. In May, National Public Radio published a piece detailing how unwelcome Central Americans feel when they cross illegally into his country. 

https://cis.org/Cadman/Taking-Andres-Manuel-Lopez-Obrador-His-Word 



 We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within our 

borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or 

the reconquest of California, Arizona, New Mexico 

and Texas into the country of Mexico.



One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has 

gone to the U.S. The National Review reported 

that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on 

incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now 

add hundreds of billions for welfare and 

remittances!  MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for 

the AMERICAN THINKER.COM

“While the Obama Administration downplays violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, authorities in Texas reveal that Mexican  have transformed parts of the state into a war zone where shootings, beheadings, kidnappings and murders are common.

"After six years of the corrupt and brutal rule of the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) administration of President Enrique Peña Nieto, Mexico is mired in pandemic violence, unprecedented social inequality and staggering levels of unemployment as well as deepening poverty for the majority of the population."

The elections in Mexico and the political tasks of the working class

30 June 2018
The national elections taking place in Mexico on Sunday pose vital issues before the Mexican and international working class.
After six years of the corrupt and brutal rule of the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) administration of President Enrique Peña Nieto, Mexico is mired in pandemic violence, unprecedented social inequality and staggering levels of unemployment as well as deepening poverty for the majority of the population.
The ruling PRI, which held undisputed power from 1929 to 2000, is so hated that it chose as its candidate a “technocrat”, José Antonio Meade, who is not even a member of the party. He is running third in the polls, and there is distinct possibility that the party will face a nationwide route on the local, state and federal levels.
The candidate of the right-wing PAN (National Action Party), with which the PRI has alternated power since the dawn of the new millennium, Ricardo Anaya, is widely viewed as a representative of the corrupt system of bribes and kickbacks that he oversaw as the former head of the president of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies.
With the massive popular repudiation of these two traditional ruling parties, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the former mayor of Mexico City and now three-time presidential candidate, running as leader of the MORENA (Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional) party, is projected by virtually every poll to win the July 1 election by an historically unprecedented margin.
The coming to power of López Obrador will yield not a way out of the current crisis, but its sharp intensification and new dangers for the Mexican working class. Sooner rather than later, a MORENA-led administration will betray the mass aspirations for an end to the social hardship and suffering that López Obrador has cynically exploited.
There are no doubt substantial popular illusions in López Obrador, or AMLO as he is popularly known. A 64-year-old professional politician, he began his career in the PRI, leaving it for the PRD (Democratic Revolutionary Party) and twice running as its presidential candidate. He went on to found MORENA after the PRD turned sharply to the right, signing on to Peña Nieto’s 2012 “Pact for Mexico”, which opened up Mexico’s labor market, its education system, and the energy, financial, and telecommunication sectors to privatization schemes and so-called free-market “reforms.”
The closing of AMLO’s campaign Wednesday night, staged before a crowd that packed the Azteca stadium in southern Mexico City, provided an illustration of the sharp contradiction between the popular illusions in López Obrador and the reality of his class position and political program.
While vowing that the ruling parties of the past would lose the election, he promised that there “will not be reprisals.” This means that the crimes of the past six years, including the disappearance and presumed murder of the 43 Ayotzinapa teaching students, along with countless other massacres by state security forces, not to mention the wholesale corruption which AMLO has made the centerpiece of his campaign, will go unpunished.
He promised that “we will seek unity to the extent that we can.” Indeed, right-wing former PRI and PAN officials are already being integrated into AMLO’s prospective cabinet, guaranteeing continuity of the anti-working class policies carried out by both parties over the course of decades.
He signaled his readiness to enter a dialogue and reach agreements with Donald Trump, who after Peña Nieto is the most hated man in Mexico for his undisguised anti-Mexican racism, persecution of immigrants and demands that Mexico pay up to $15 billion to build a wall on its border. AMLO said that he would propose to Trump the creation of “something like the old Alliance for Progress,” the aid program inaugurated under US President Kennedy in 1961 with the aim of tying Latin America closer to US imperialism and forestalling left-nationalist revolutions like the one in Cuba.
As López Obrador has emerged as the all but certain victor in the July 1 election, he has moved steadily to the right, even as Mexico’s ruling oligarchy, which formerly denounced him as a demagogue bent on turning Mexico into a new Cuba or Venezuela, has moved to accept him.
Indeed, billionaire Carlos Slim, the richest man in Mexico and formally the richest man in the world, warned recently that if AMLO failed to be elected president, the country would face economic instability.
In an appearance before the heads of Mexico’s major banks in March, the MORENA candidate vowed that the “property regime” in Mexico would be respected, with no plans for “expropriations or nationalizations.” He swore his fealty to the “market economy” and promised that his policies would not “affect the banking sector at all.”
Similarly, his aides and advisors have walked back AMLO’s previous denunciations of the drive to privatize Mexico’s previously state-controlled energy sector and open it up to exploitation by international energy conglomerates, promising that all such contracts will be respected.
The markets have already factored in the victory of López Obrador, and by all accounts see no threat to the interests of Mexican and world capitalism.
“This stability is perhaps surprising,” said the director general of the Mexican stock exchange, José Oriol Bosch. “There are always those who look for the negative, but what is being demonstrated in the markets is that the country is prepared for this process.”
After his meetings with executives of major international banks such as Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. in recent months, Wall Street is similarly bullish on an AMLO victory.
It cannot be excluded, given the deep crisis and bitter divisions within the Mexican ruling class, that the 2018 election will be determined not by the popular vote, but by electoral fraud. Such was the case in 1988, when the election was stolen from Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas in order to install the PRI candidate Carlos Salinas.
This has been the most violent election year in Mexican history, with over 120 politicians murdered since campaigning began. These killings take place in the context of a continuing wave of violence, claiming 8,000 lives in the same period, in a country where at least 35,000 people are classified as disappeared.
The passing of a Domestic Security Law last year has given the president the authority to impose what amounts to martial law, deploying the army to the streets. An attempt to impose a president under such conditions, however, could quickly plunge volatile Mexico into violent social upheaval.
The international working class has undergone bitter experiences with bourgeois parties like MORENA, resting on affluent layers of the middle class and employing vaguely left phrases, while promising “hope” and “change.” Just across Mexico’s northern border, American workers made such an experience with Democrat Barack Obama, hailed by the pseudo-left as a “transformational president,” who, once in power, imposed policies that expanded war, accelerated the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top and increased mass deportations to record levels.
Then there was the election of Syriza in Greece. Hailed by petty-bourgeois left parties throughout the world, it came to power in 2015 on the basis of promises to end EU-imposed austerity measures, only to capitulate within months, trampling underfoot a referendum rejecting austerity by a landslide and imposing the cuts demanded by the international banks.
There is a striking similarity between the campaigns waged by Syriza and MORENA. Syriza formed a coalition after the 2015 election with the Independent Greeks, a right-wing nationalist party that advocates anti-immigrant policies and support for the Greek Orthodox Church, while engaging in open anti-Semitism.
AMLO’s Morena is running in Sunday’s election as part of a coalition that includes the Social Encounter Party (PES), a right-wing party comprised mostly of Evangelical Christians that campaigns against gay rights, same-sex marriage and abortion.
This remarkable symmetry is by no means coincidental. In both cases, the alliance of these supposed “left” bourgeois candidates with parties of the extreme right represents an unmistakable signal to the ruling establishment that they can be entrusted to defend the interests of both national and foreign capital, including through the support of the most right-wing policies.
MORENA and AMLO represent the interests of capitalism. It is notable that López Obrador has not embraced or welcomed the explosive struggles of the Mexican workers and oppressed, from the gasolinazo protests against the hiking of energy costs to the strikes of teachers and the ongoing struggles of victims of state violence.
While promising the cheapest form of populism, a struggle against corruption—while guaranteeing impunity for the corrupt—and minimal increases in social assistance programs for the poor, it can be certain that a López Obrador administration will respond to pressure from the working class not with concessions, but with ferocious attacks in defense of the interests of the financial elite that has embraced AMLO.

"Chairman of the DNC Keith Ellison was even 


spotted wearing a shirt stating, "I don't believe in borders" 

written in Spanish.

According to a new CBS news poll, 63 percent of Americans in 

competitive congressional districts think those crossing 

illegally should be immediately deported or arrested.  This is undoubtedly contrary to the views expressed by the Democratic Party.

How to Humanely Reduce Unlawful Immigration and Shut Down Open-Borders Democrats




Today's lesson on morality and human rights comes from the probable (according to polls) next president of our crime-infested and corrupt neighbor to the south (emphases added):
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States[,] ...declaring it a "human right" for all North Americans.
"[W]e will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."
Apparently, the U.S. must welcome an unlimited number of these unwanted, by their own president, Mexicans, because the U.S. is morally obligated to serve as Mexico's social-dysfunction safety valve and ATM.
Did you know that "chutzpah" is the same in Hebrew and Spanish?  On the other hand, everyone knows that Obrador can count on a large cohort of Democrats, who share his view:
The reaction among immigration advocates has gone from outrage about family separations to consternation about family detention, because their ultimate goal is to let the migrants come into the United States and stay.
Lest anyone misunderstand, when Democrats say "the," they mean "all."  Today, it's "family separations"; tomorrow, who knows?  But whatever the Dems'démagogie du jour, most Americans want illegal immigration greatly reduced and, ideally, eliminated.  The latter, most likely, is a pipe dream.  But not only can the former be done.  It can be done using methods already tried and proven.
First, yes, we need a wall.  If the tooth-and-nail opposition of our open-border Democratic friends is insufficient evidence that a wall would work, consider, as President Trump has, Israel's wall.  Israel had an illegal alien problem, too – or she did, until she built a wall, as a February 2017 Senate report confirmed:
The number of illegal crossers on the Israel-Egypt border dropped after the construction of the fence, from more than 16,000 in 2011 to less than 20 in 2016 – a 99 percent decrease.
One can argue, as some do, that other Israeli measures contributed to the decrease.  But there can be no doubt that the wall was the primary, and a major, factor.
So a wall – and ending chain migration, and ending the visa lottery, and mandatory E‑Verify – will greatly reduce unlawful immigration.  But there is one more thing government can do.
Allow the writer, whose father immigrated to America as a refugee, in 1948, to elucidate:
When the writer's dad got off the boat, he did not simply disembark in Manhattan, casually stroll streets paved with gold and buy the Brooklyn Bridge.  First, he had to stop here:
In the first half of the 19th century, most immigrants arriving in New York City landed at docks on the east side of the tip of Manhattan, around South Street.  On August 1, 1855, Castle Clinton became the Emigrant Landing Depot[.] ... [W]hen the U.S. government assumed control of immigration processing, [it moved] the center to the larger, more isolated Ellis Island facility on January 2, 1892 ... because immigrants were known to carry diseases, which led to epidemics of cholera and smallpox.
The key word in the above quote is "isolated," as in no physical route for unlawful aliens on to the mainland.
Then, the dangers were cholera and smallpox.  Today, the dangers are MS-13 violence, lack of education and marketable skills, and the threat of someday becoming citizens and voting for Democrats.  In both cases, the problem was a threat to the population from foreign immigration.  And in both cases, the solution was to isolate new arrivals until they could be properly vetted and admitted into the mainland U.S. lawfully.
The writer lives in New York City, and last time he checked, Ellis Island was still there, repurposed as a museum.  So how about making so-called catch-and-release unnecessary by returning Ellis Island to its original use and supplementing or replacing the current buildings with one or more new, modern dormitories, where illegals seized at the border could be housed comfortably, for as long as required, and with no need to separate families?
On the other hand, Ellis Island is on the opposite side of the country from the Mexican border, where the main problem is.  Alcatraz Island is not.  What about the Virgin Islands, Guam, or any number of U.S. island possessions, where the climate is both comfortable and similar to that of Mexico and Central America?  The specific location is less important than that there be no physical access to the mainland, nor would the housing need to be overly expensive – Quonset huts if space allows, or easily convertible, and stackable, cargo containers.
Or even tents, as the Navy is already planning:
The U.S. Navy drafting plans to house up to 25,000 immigrants on its bases and other facilities, at an estimated cost of about $233 million over six months, as the Trump administration seeks to ease a mounting crisis on the Mexican border[.] ...
[T]he draft document ... also says that a Navy base in California could house up to a further 47,000 people.
Problem solved...almost.  It's a good plan, but with one major flaw: perhaps the writer is mistaken, but it seems that all of the proposed military bases are on the mainland U.S.  Again, the locations should be isolated, with no physical connection to the mainland.  There is also the issue of cost and not just the $233 million for six months (so $466 billion per year); one company has a $162-million contract "to fly immigrant children to shelters across the United States."
There is a better, and possibly cheaper, solution.  It's staring the Navy right in the face.
Surely, most readers know that the Navy maintains a reserve, or "mothball," fleet of decommissioned ships anchored in various parts of the country, including California.
Your typical aircraft carrier houses about 6,000 sailors.  But think of all that extra space on the (unused) flight deck.  Aircraft carriers also have kitchens specifically designed to feed thousands of people.
America is not suffering from a shortage of decommissioned ships.  Why pay hundreds of millions of dollars to fly apprehended illegals to multiple locations around the continental U.S. when the Navy can move the ships to the immigrants, anchoring as close to the problem as possible but far enough from shore to keep illegals from accessing the mainland?  Other mothballed ships could ferry large numbers of illegals to and from the offshore ships far more cheaply than flying them all over the country.
Additional ships could even return rejected aliens to their home countries – preferably, as Eisenhower did, on the side of the home country farthest from the U.S.
Should any liberal open-borders Democrat complain, just casually mention, preferably publicly, that American sailors lived on those same ships, for much longer, and make popcorn while Democrats explain why what was good enough for American sailors is not good enough for foreigners, who have done nothing for America and who have no legal right even to be here.
Let all potential trespassers know that should they manage to violate our border, the only part of America they will ever see is the part of America they can see from the deck of a ship before being transported on a slow boat back to their home countries, and unlawful immigration will drop.  Like a rock.
Gene Schwimmer is a New York- and New Jersey-licensed real estate broker and author of The Christian State.

MEXICAN IMPERIALISM IN U.S. OPEN BORDERS IS HARDLY NEW!

MEXICO’S SUPREMACY IN AMERICA

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Mexican President Felipe Calderon Sunday demanded the United States surrender its sovereignty, abandon the rule of law and accede to Mexico's inherent supremacy.

Lou Dobbs says Mexican President Felipe Calderon is showing "blatant hypocrisy" on immigration.

In his state of the union address to the Mexican nation, 

Calderon established his imperialistic imperatives: "I have 

said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever 

there is a Mexican, there is Mexico. And, for this reason, 

the government action on behalf of our countrymen 

is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of 

their rights."

Calderon protested the U.S. government's increased raids on illegal employers of illegal alien employees and work site enforcement. In what is little more than a faint nod to the Bush administration's responsibility to enforce U.S. immigration law, the Department of Homeland Security had planned to send out notices to employers from the Social Security Administration informing them of non-matching records between an employee's name and Social Security number. These employers would then be forced to resolve any discrepancy within 90 days or be required to dismiss the employee or face up to $10,000 in fines for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

But then, ethnocentric advocacy groups and some labor unions, trying to bolster their membership, sued to stop the crackdown on hiring illegal alien workers. A federal judge in California last week issued a temporary restraining order blocking the plan, giving a victory to the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center, all of which brought the suit alleging DHS exceeded its authority in making the rule.

That U.S. District Court judge ruled as if she were an employee of the Mexican government, rather than the U.S. government. Homeland Security was simply enforcing existing immigration laws. Are we not a nation that follows the rule of law? If not, we're no country at all.


Calderon must have been delighted by the judge's decision. Calderon, like his predecessors, Carlos Salinas and Vicente Fox, has failed miserably to establish policies that would create jobs for the Mexican people and to eliminate shameful, unchecked corruption and incompetence in the Mexican government.

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

 In his first state of the union speech since becoming president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon criticized the U.S. government and its efforts to shut down illegal immigration. During the speech Calderon proclaimed that “Mexico does not end at its borders” and that “where there is a Mexican, there is a Mexico.” Tune in for a full report on Calderon’s vigorous fight to protect Mexican interests in the United States—even when they’re built on illegal immigration.


Billionaire Mexicans tell their poor to JUMP U.S. OPEN BORDERS and LOOT THE STUPID GRINGO… and loot they do!

Billions of dollars are sucked out of America from Mexico’s looting!


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

HEAR THAT SUCKING SOUND?

IT’S MEXICO SUCKING THE BLOOD OF AMERICA…. HUNDREDS OF 

BILLIONS FOR WELFARE, “FREE” HEALTHCARE, HEROIN SALES, CRIME 

COST AND THEN THEY SEND TENS OF BILLIONS BACK TO NARCOMEX



“In the U.S. the remittances that come of 

illegal immigration drive down U.S. wages, particularly 
of those on the lowest-skilled parts of the ladder, and as money flows out from local communities, leaves them underinvested and run-down. 

Nobody can live two places at once. Illegal immigrants live here but their money lives in Mexico. And it's often untaxed.” 

Billionaire Mexicans tell their poor to JUMP U.S. OPEN BORDERS and LOOT THE STUPID GRINGO… and loot they do!

The man likely to be the next president of Mexico just called for mass migration to the US




I don't think this fellow and Donald Trump are going to get along very well, do you?
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.
“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”
He then declared it as “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports.
While the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner. 
Obrador in April delivered speech criticizing Trump and promising that Mexico will not become a “piñata” for any foreign government, Global News reports.
The former mayor of Mexico City, Obrador holds progressive populist views. The 64-year-old ran unsuccessfully for president twice before, according to DW.
Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting amnesty to Mexican drug cartels. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added.
To be sure, AMLO is only saying out loud what every other Mexican president believed in his heart; that America is Mexico's "social safety net" and that it's up to the US taxpayer to take care of Mexico's unemployable, destitute millions.
Unsaid by AMLO is the implication of a mass migration of Mexicans to the US. The not-so-secret dream of every Mexican government that illegals flooding into America will eventually allow for a "return" of California and much of the American southwest to Mexico. 
What makes this socialist different, however, is his novel argument that entering the US illegally is actually a "human right." That's an opinion we could have a lot of fun with. One would assume if it was a "human right" to illegally enter the US, that it would then be a human right to enter Mexico - or any other country, for that matter.
Of course, AMLO is  just pushing leftist buttons by proclaiming this brand spanking new human right. He can't be serious, can he? It hardly matters. Trump will, I'm sure, have something to say about a mass migration of Mexicans to the US and if this socialist nutjob actually believes he can encourage that kind of invasion and not suffer any consequences, he doesn't know our president.

CUT LA RAZA’S WELFARE AND FIND THE FUNDS TO BUILD THE WALL AGAINST THE LA RAZA HEROIN CARTELS! http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/03/monica-showalter-cut-billions-in.html

Adios, Sanctuary La Raza Welfare State of California  

A fifth-generation Californian laments his state’s ongoing economic collapse.

By Steve Baldwin

American Spectator, October 19, 2017

What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs. 

MEXICO’S BIGGEST EXPORT TO AMERICA… POVERTY, CRIMINALS, ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS FOR WELFARE and HEROIN

The following is a partial list of politicians that are La Raza members working for open borders, amnesty (illegal Mexicans are not interested in citizenship) and no wall. The ultimate goal of Mexico is to continue successfully using the United States as their welfare system, cut a deal whereby the illegals can hop the border, give birth, pillage, make their pesos and then return home.  DAVID SIROTA.com


THE INVADING CRIMINALS:
A county by county chart:       


According to the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies, the deportations occurred between October 2008 and February 2015. The three counties with the most deportations during this period were Los Angeles County, Calif.; Maricopa County, Ariz.; and Harris County, Texas.

OBAMA’S INVASION OF ILLEGALS IS WORKING!
They’re already signed up to vote LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEM!

“According to Immigration and Customers Enforcement data first obtained by the Associated Press this week, about 70 percent of the 40,000 migrant family members arrested at the border since May did not follow up their arrest with a necessary visit to an immigration office.”

AMERICA: YOU’RE BETTER OFF BEING AN ILLEGAL!!!


This annual income for an impoverished American

family is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 

in federal funds which are spent on each 

unaccompanied minor border crosser.

study by Tom Wong of the University of 

California at San Diego discovered that more 

than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal 

aliens in the program have anchor babies. 

That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who 

are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal 

aliens. This does not include the anchor 

babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens.

JOHN BINDER




















Underage Pregnant Girl, 1-Yr-Old Child Among 57 Migrants Rescued in Arizona Desert



36 minors and 21 adult migrants rescued by Border Patrol agents after lost in 108 degree heat of Arizona desert. (Photo: U.S. Border Patrol)

Photo: U.S. Border Patrol
      922

An underage pregnant girl and a 1-year-old child were among a group of 36 minor and 21 adult migrants rescued in the 108-degree heat of the Arizona desert after they illegally crossed the border from Mexico. Many in the group required medical attention for exposure to the heat and dehydration.
Tucson Sector Border Patrol agents assigned to the Ajo Station responded to a 911 call for assistance from a large group of illegal immigrants who became lost in the desert after illegally crossing the border on Friday. The call came in from the Sonora, Mexico, 911 system. The group consisted of 36 minors and 21 adults. At lease 17 of the minors were unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, according to information obtained by Breitbart Texas from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials. The minors included an underage girl who is pregnant and a one-year-old toddler, officials stated.
36 minors and 21 adult migrants rescued by Border Patrol agents after lost in 108 degree heat of Arizona desert. (Photo: U.S. Border Patrol)
36 minors and 21 adult migrants rescued by Border Patrol agents after becoming lost in 108 degree heat of the Arizona desert. (Photo: U.S. Border Patrol)
Many people in the group required medical attention, including the pregnant teen. Agents who are trained as emergency medical technicians provided fluids and first aid for the distressed migrants. The pregnant underage girl required an IV for immediate fluids and then had to be transported to an area hospital for additional treatment, officials stated.
“Regardless of the unscrupulous and ill regard for human life attitude by smugglers, Border Patrol Agents work tirelessly to ensure not only the safety and security of our nation but also the safety of those who they come in contact with,” CBP officials said in a written statement. “Due to the extreme heat, Tucson Sector Border Patrol officials warn that summer is an especially dangerous time to be stranded in Arizona’s desert.”
Agents said the weather conditions were stiflingly hot, reaching a 108 degrees. The agents made sure everyone had immediate access to food and water before transporting them to the Ajo Station for processing.
Incidents like this illustrate the dangers children are being placed in by their parents and other adults, Border Patrol officials told Breitbart Texas.
“Arizona’s desert is a merciless environment for those unprepared for its remote, harsh terrain and unpredictable weather,” officials stated. The Border Patrol advises anyone in distress to call 9-1-1 or activate a rescue beacon as soon as possible as dehydration can be deadly if not treated.
Earlier in the week, Border Patrol agents patrolling along the border west of the Lukeville Port of Entry came upon a 6-year-old boy who had been abandoned by an uncle who smuggled him into the county and then left him sitting beside the dirt road in 103-degree heat, Breitbart Texas reported. The uncle reportedly told the boy Border Patrol agents would pick him up.
Border Patrol agents found the 6-year-old Costa Rican boy sitting along a dirt road in the middle of the desert during a summer day where temperatures rose in excess of 103 degrees, Breitbart Texas reported Wednesday evening. Border Patrol agents happened upon the child along the dirt road that follows the Mexican border west of the Lukeville Port of Entry, officials told Breitbart Texas. The boy told Border Patrol agents an uncle smuggled him across the border and then abandoned him saying Border Patrol would pick him up, officials stated.
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTXGAB, and Facebook.

Mexico: Where Is Your Shame?

At a demonstration Wednesday in Mexico City against Arizona's law.
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Immigration: Mexico's government gloated triumphantly after a federal judge's injunction blocked Arizona's immigration law. But it's no victory for Mexico. In fact, Mexico's leaders ought to be mortified.

As radical immigration activists crowed with glee and the Obama administration claimed victory, Mexico's government joined the applause.

Calling Judge Susan Bolton's injunction Wednesday "a step in the right direction," Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa declared: "The government of Mexico would like to express its recognition for the determination demonstrated by the federal government of the United States and the actions of the civil organizations that organized lawsuits against the SB 1070 law."

In reality, it ought to be ashamed. Supposedly framed as an issue of federal power pre-empting state power, it's hardly Mexico's business. But Mexico made a big show of saying its interest was in protecting its nationals from the dreadful racism of Arizona that its own citizens, curiously enough, keep fleeing to.

Espinosa said her government was busy collecting data on civil rights violations and her department had issued an all-out travel warning to Mexican nationals about Arizona.

That's where Mexico's hypocrisy is just too much.
First, Mexico encourages illegal immigration to the U.S. Oh, it says it doesn't, but it prints comic book guides for would-be illegal immigrants and provides ID cards for illegals once they get here. In Arizona alone, Mexico keeps five consulates busy.

 That's not out of love for its own citizens, but because Mexicans send cash back to Mexico that helps finance the government.

Instead of selling its wasteful state-owned oil company or getting rid of red tape to create jobs in Mexico, Mexico spends the hard currency from remittances. It fails to look at why its citizens leave.
According to the Heritage Foundation-Wall Street Journal 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Mexico's big problem is — no shock — government corruption, where it ranks below the world average.

 That's where Mexico's cartels come in.

Mexico's encouragement of illegal immigration undercuts its valiant war against its smuggling cartels. The cartels' prowess and firepower have made them the only ones who can smuggle effectively across the border. U.S. law enforcers say they now control human-smuggling on our southern border.
Feed them immigrants and they grow more cash-rich — and right now, immigrant smuggling is about a third of the cartels' income.

Mass graves and car bombings are signs of criminal organizations getting bigger, and more powerful. Juarez, which has lost 5,000 people this year, bleeds because cartels fight over not just who gets the drug routes, but who gets the illegal-immigrant smuggling routes, too.

Aside from the cartel mayhem in Mexico, the bodies are piling up in the Arizona desert and U.S. Border Patrol rescues of abandoned illegals left to die have risen.

 It's not the desert's fault, and it's certainly not Uncle Sam's fault, as activists claim. No, it's the fact that Mexicans are encouraged to emigrate. Criminal cartels don't fear abandoning their human cargo in the desert, as long as Mexico does nothing and blames Uncle Sam.

Hearing Mexico's government now cheer the Arizona ruling, which will only encourage more illegal immigration, gives the country's regime a pretty inhuman face.

If Mexico had any decency, it would do all it could to discourage illegal immigration and keep a respectful silence about Arizona.

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.
Mexico Arrests Top Gulf Cartel Leader near Texas Border

























Tamaulipas drug bust
Tamaulipas State Police
   287


REYNOSA, Tamaulipas — Mexican authorities arrested one of the top leaders of the Gulf Cartel in the region. The kingpin has been singled out as one of the men responsible for the escalation of violence that has taken place in this border city. 

Mexican law enforcement sources confirmed the capture to Breitbart Texas of Luis Miguel “Flako Sierra” Mercado by a team of military personnel and state police forces. The capture comes just weeks after the Tamaulipas government kicked off an intelligence sharing partnership and an international crime stoppers program with various U.S. federal agencies, Breitbart Texas reported at the time. 
Law enforcement sources revealed to Breitbart Texas that the man known as Flako Sierra assumed command of the Los Metros faction of the Gulf Cartel after the previous regional leader Luis Alberto “Pelochas” Blanco Flores had been kicked out by his own group. The man known as Flako Sierra had allied himself with Miguel Angel “Miguelito” Alvarez and at one time with “Pelochas” to maintain control of Reynosa.
For more than a year, the faction known as Los Metros has been at war with another Gulf Cartel commander called Petronilo “Panilo” Moreno and the Gulf Cartel faction from Matamoros who has been sending squads from their groups called Escorpios and Ciclones to help Moreno in an attempt to take control of Reynosa. The fighting led to more than 500 casualties since the two factions went to war in early 2017, Breitbart Texas reported. 
As Breitbart Texas reported, the Tamaulipas Government recently kicked off a state-based reward program offering cash rewards for information leading to the capture of various cartel bosses. Authorities had been offering approximately $95,000 for information leading to the arrest of Flako Sierra. 
Editor’s Note: Breitbart Texas traveled to the Mexican States of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and Nuevo León to recruit citizen journalists willing to risk their lives and expose the cartels silencing their communities.  The writers would face certain death at the hands of the various cartels that operate in those areas including the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas if a pseudonym were not used. Breitbart Texas’ Cartel Chronicles are published in both English and in their original Spanish. This article was written by “A.C. Del Angel” from Tamaulipas. 


One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances!  MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM


PAUL KRUGMAN

The disintegration of California, a Mexican satellite welfare state of poverty, crime and high taxes

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/04/paul-krugman-look-at-california-under.html


ICE's June Enforcement Actions Net 540 Arrests 

By Preston Huennekens 

CIS Immigration Blog, June 27, 2018 

The month of June has been a busy one for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to publicly available news releases from the agency's newsroom, large-scale operations resulted in over 500 arrests across the United States. These operations included targeted enforcement and removal procedures, worksite investigations, and human smuggling cases. 

ICE is also involved in other non-immigration-related law enforcement responsibilities such as investigating and arresting producers and consumers of child pornography. Those arrests are not included in this post since they are unrelated to immigration, but are nonetheless an important part of ICE's day-to-day duties. 

https://cis.org/Huennekens/ICEs-June-Enforcement-Actions-Net-540-Arrests 

Trump Administration Combats Discrimination Against American Workers 

ICE investigation uncovers company that defrauded Americans out of jobs. 

By Michael Cutler 

FrontPageMag.com, June 28, 2018 

While globalists frequently attempt to play the “compassion card” there is nothing compassionate about exploiting foreign workers or screwing American workers out of their jobs.

The Democratic Party that used to represent American blue collar workers have sold them out by advocating for the flooding of America with huge numbers of foreign workers. Often American and lawful immigrants pay for this betrayal with their jobs and their ability to support themselves and their families. All too often this results in these American and lawful immigrants becoming homeless.

Homelessness has soared to record levels, often engendering the separation of children from their parents. Ironically while the Democrats vociferously wailed about the administration prosecuting illegal aliens who are caught entering the United States covertly, without inspection and hence separating the children from their parents, these same politicians completely ignore the way that American kids have been taken from their homeless parents.

The investigation into the discriminatory hiring practices of Triple H Services addressed in the DOJ press release uncovered apparent fraud.

Undoubtedly there are many, many other companies operating throughout the United States who defraud various elements of the immigration system to displace American workers to drive down wages and, perhaps, force their workers to work under illegally dangerous conditions. 

. . . 
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270570/trump-administration-combats-discrimination-michael-cutler 

Illegal Aliens: The New Black Vote for Democrats





As an African-American, I cannot remember a better time in history to live in the United States; and thanks to the policies of President Trump, many other Blacks are starting to feel the same way.  The 60-year gig is up for the power-hungry Democratic Party that has been running a massive scam on Black people since the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. Thank God -- Black people are finally starting to wake up and unplug themselves from the Liberal Matrix that has ruled their reality for over a half a century.
First it was the hilariously viral YouTube sensations “Diamond & Silk”supporting Trump during his 2016 Presidential campaign.
Then, it was Kanye West shocking the world with his vehement support of President Trump on TMZ Live, touting all the wonderful things that Trump has done for the Black community.  Remember, this is the same guy who said back in 2005 during the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe that President Bush “doesn’t care about Black people.”  He has now woken up to the Democrat scam and is making an effort to wake his fellow Blacks up to it. 
Then there was Candace Owens of Turning Point USA, who has been on anaggressive nationwide campaign exposing the Democratic Party for what it truly is -- A communist, socialist, racist organization that has presided over the massive unemployment, massive genocide (via abortion), and massive economic slavery (in the form of family-destroying welfare programs) of poor Black minorities in the U.S. since the 1960s.
Then finally, your average everyday grassroots Black voter (like the woman in this video) has finally woken up to the 50-year Democratic scam.  Trust me, there are many more like her, and I think the left is in for a rude awakening in the 2020 elections, (or maybe I should call it the 2020 Republican RE-elections).
As a side note, I would also like to add that the Democratic party is an atheist organization as well, since it attempted to ban any mentioning of the names of God or Jerusalem during the 2012 Democratic National Convention, and when the Antonio Villaraigosa (Mayor of Los Angeles at the time) held a vote to reinstate those two terms, he was practically booed out of the arena by those in opposition. Here is the footage if you don’t believe me.
But getting back on topic, Trump has done more for the Black community than any other president in modern history (Lincoln freed the slaves, hence my use of the term ‘modern history’). So much so that it is impossible for the mainstream media to hide it, although they are trying as hard as they can.
According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Black unemployment is the lowest it has ever been since that number was first recorded back in 1973.  If the Black unemployment numbers aren’t good enough news, food stamps and welfare recipients are at an all time low as well, according to the most recent report from the Department of Agriculture that tracks these statistics.
This is not my opinion, these are facts that cannot be argued or even disagreed with.
The most recent manufactured crisis by the left regarding “children being separated from their parents” is their latest tactic to bring down President Trump.  Family separations are something that have been going on since the Flores Settlement back in 1997, and Barack Obama enforced this more than any other president in history.
I’m not saying that I agree with it, because I don’t, (and neither does President Trump), I’m simply stating that the Democrats have a sudden outrage over something that has been going on for 20 years, and mostly on their watch; and I believe their sudden outrage is to distract the public from three things:
1.  The most recent IG report uncovering the corruption of James Comey
2.  The upcoming 2018 midterm elections
3.  The fact that the Trump economy is absolutely booming and has been described as “unstoppable”  by economic experts.
We can also throw in a fourth reason: Trump recently putting an official end to the Korean War that has been going on since 1950, and North Korea’s completedenuclearization and their long-awaited return of the remains of hundreds of soldiers we lost in that war. Trump accomplished all this without firing a single shot or missile, just good ol’ negotiatin’.
Now that Trump has signed an executive order to end the provision of the Flores Settlement that calls for families to be separated after 20 days of detainment, the Democrats are suing to get that overturned, which would actually put these poor families right back at square one and cause them to be separated again!
I have been telling Black people for almost 20 years now that the Democrats do not care about them. If Democrats truly cared about Blacks, they would applaud the milestone victory for their Black constituents regarding Trump’s historic numbers of reduced Black unemployment, but instead they could actually care less. In fact, the Congressional Black Caucus seemed angry about the Black unemployment numbers when Trump mentioned them during his 2018 State of the Union address.  They do not care about Black people any more than they care about any of the other demographics that they claim to represent, like the LGBTQ Community, teachers unions, environmentalists, and also illegal immigrants.
Do the Democrats truly care about illegal immigrants? Ask yourself these three questions:
1) Would Democrats agree to a law that would require parents who are separated from their children to sign deportation papers in order to be reunited with their children whom they put in danger by illegally crossing?  There has been talk in the Trump Administration over the last few days of doing this as an ongoing solution/deterrent to anyone who would attempt to illegally cross the border.
2) How would the Democrats respond to a law that would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants on one condition –- They would not be able to vote for a minimum of eight years from the date they received their amnesty?  I think we all know how that would play out...
3) If Democrats care so much about illegal immigrant families staying together and not being separated at the border, then why are they fighting President Trump so hard on building his big, long, impenetrable wall that he has been honest about building since he announced his candidacy all the way back in June 2015?
Wouldn’t building an impenetrable wall deter illegal immigrants from entering into the U.S., and therefore “keep families together” as a result?  Wouldn’t this be a long-term solution that would give them their supposedly much-desired outcome of illegal immigrant families staying together?
In conclusion, I have always believed that the reason that the Democrats are focused so much on the issue of illegal immigration is because a huge part of their voting segment (Black voters) have been contracepting and aborting themselves out of the electorate at an alarming rate since the 1960s, and the Democrats have been scrambling to replace them and create a new permanent underclass of uninformed, entitled, and manipulated voters who will faithfully and mindlessly vote Democrat every four years in exchange for their government handouts, which unfortunately is what Black voters have been doing since the death of Dr. King.
The Democrats are now trying to create “a new Black vote” of grateful illegal immigrants who have been scammed into voting for them with unjustly obtained citizenship papers. The entire point is that the Democratic Party does not care about people; all they care about are votes.  The demographics that they claim to look out for are nothing more than pawns on the chessboard of their power play against their opposition. 
There are large numbers of other Black voters who are starting to wake up, like the woman in the above-mentioned video, and it’s about damn time. 
Bobby Hesley Lives in Metro Detroit, and is a 37-year-old Catholic speaker, writer, and conservative political commentator.  He has done TV, radio, and podcast appearances for various media outlets over the years.  He can be reached at: bobbyhesley@gmail.com

"Chairman of the DNC Keith Ellison was even spotted wearing a shirt stating, "I don't believe in borders" written in Spanish.

According to a new CBS news poll, 63 percent of Americans in competitive congressional districts think those crossing illegally should be immediately deported or arrested.  This is undoubtedly contrary to the views expressed by the Democratic Party.


Their endgame is open borders, which has become evident over the last eight years.  Don't for one second let them convince you otherwise." Evan Berryhill Twitter @EvBerryhill.

Poll: Vast Majority of Democrats Do Not Want ICE Abolished




















Abolish Ice
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
     Washington, D.C.502


The vast majority of Democrat voters say they do not want to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which is tasked with deporting the 12 to 30 million illegal aliens currently living across the United States.

In recent weeks, Democrats in the House and Senate, along with progressive liberals like Cynthia Nixon in New York and most recently insurgent Democrat candidate for Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have been demanding ICE be abolished and all immigration enforcement be ended.
However, the latest Harvard/Harris Poll reveals that the overwhelming majority of Democrat voters say they do not want ICE abolished.
Nearly 60 percent of Democrats said they do not want ICE to be disbanded. Abolishing the deportation agency, as Breitbart News reported, would have allowed more than 1.6 million illegal aliens to have gone free throughout the U.S. in the last five years.
Additionally, swing voters are vastly opposed to abolishing ICE as well. Nearly 75 percent of swing voters said they supported ICE and did not want the agency to disband. About 78 percent of Republicans said the same, as well as nearly 70 percent of all Americans.
As Breitbart News reported, Democrats lost ground game in the 2018 midterm elections in battleground districts after weeks of opposing all immigration enforcement and promoting an agenda that ends all border enforcement.
Americans overwhelmingly support ending illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration levels, at which more than 1.5 million immigrants are admitted to the U.S. every year. The majority of swing voters say they oppose importing more foreign workers to compete against Americans for jobs. Meanwhile, nearly two out of three Americans say they support reducing legal immigration, and more Americans support zero immigrationto the U.S. than current legal immigration levels. More than four in nine in blackAmericans in swing districts across the country say immigration has made life “worse” in America.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder


COUNTRY OVERBOARD! WOMEN AND CHILDREN LAST!





I’m still ticked off at him for not building the wall, but THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP, FOR POINTING OUT THAT MAXINE WATERS HAS A LOW IQ!
And there’s more great news! Contrary to every single New York Times editorial and opinion piece on the president’s “Muslim ban,” this week, the Supreme Court upheld the ban.
Or, as a Times op-ed titled “Trump’s Immigration Ban Is Illegal” by David J. Bier, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, put it back on Jan. 27, 2017: “[The] order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.”
For your immigration news, New York Times, maybe stop thinking you’re getting “both sides” by going to open-borders activists at the International Refugee Assistance Project and, for the opposing view, open-borders activists at the Cato Institute.
Last week, in a column that does not misstate the facts and the law about immigration, I covered some typical asylum and refugee admissions to our country, including Beatrice Munyenyezi. She was the Rwandan who got into our country by claiming to be a victim of the genocide that killed nearly a million people, even though she had helped orchestrate it.
Munyenyezi wasn’t the only participant in the Rwandan genocide who got in as a victim and was then unmasked as a perpetrator. So far, nearly 400 Rwandans granted special refugee status have been convicted of lying on visa applications about their role in the genocide. Great job, U.S. refugee admissions officials!
Courts are dealing with so many genocidal Rwandans who came to America as “refugees” that just last Friday, a federal appeals court upheld the conviction of another one, Gervais “Ken” Ngombwa, who not only lied about his participation in the genocide, but also about his family relationships. (You can’t get anything past our State Department!)
Aside from our immigration authorities missing little things like the Rwandan genocide, what is the argument for taking in millions of people from backward cultures, hotbeds of real racism, pederasty, misogyny — as opposed to the “microaggressions” that are the bane of our culture?
It’s one thing to use quotas as a response to slavery and Jim Crow in our own country, but why do we have to have an immigration quota for “people who don’t live here, have never seen an indoor toilet, and rape little girls for sport?”
Liberals act as if they are striking a blow for feminism by importing desperate women from misogynistic cultures to America. But, even to the extent they’re telling the truth, the women aren’t always victims only. They’re often co-conspirators.
Remember the Baby Hope case? In 1991, a little girl’s unidentified body was found in an Igloo cooler alongside the Henry Hudson Parkway. Twenty-two years later, the New York City police finally solved the case: The perpetrator turned out to be Baby Hope’s illegal alien cousin from Mexico, who had raped and killed her when she was 4 years old.
And how had he escaped justice for 22 years? The girl’s mother and aunt, also illegals, helped orchestrate the cover-up. The aunt helped dispose of the body and the girl’s mother never said a peep, despite admitting that she suspected all along that the corpse in the cooler was her unreported, missing daughter.
Hmong girls in Minnesota are regularly gang raped by Hmong men, but the Hmong community — even the girls’ mothers — blame the rape victims, and the attacks go unreported. These aren’t cultures of strong women and criminal men. It’s more like criminal men and complicit women.
(One of the major articles reporting on the Hmong rape culture, helping diversify America, was Pam Louwagie and Dan Browning’s “Shamed Into Silence,” published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2005. It used to be here: startribune.com/local/11594631.html. The detailed story won first place for ‘in-depth reporting’ from the Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists, but it seems to have disappeared from the Tribune’s website. Welcome to the Soviet Union!)
In San Francisco, we had the young Indian sex slaves of pederast Lakireddy Bali Reddy testifying on his behalf. Once he was finally busted — not by our fantastic “democracy dies in darkness” mainstream media, but by a local high school newspaper — we found out his child rape victims thought they deserved it. They could not be coaxed to testify against him. Some took the stand on his behalf. They were all given asylum. We didn’t change them; they just moved here, without altering their belief in human slavery or the caste system one iota.
Americans are told we have to understand that it’s part of their native cultures.
Exactly! It’s their culture. We’re not rescuing anybody; we’re bringing in diseased cultures. The alleged refugees don’t float above and apart from their societies. Feminists may see the world as The Boy Team versus The Girl Team, but in reality, it’s The Civilized Team versus The Primitive Team. Virtually every woman outside of the First World lives in an abusive society. We can’t take them all in.
How did violent, backward, misogynistic cultures become our problem? Did we take a vote and agree to be the world’s charity ward?
Democrats who claim to be defenders of the weak, the marginal and vulnerable are happy to toss our safe, functioning country aside — as long as they can wreck America (and get their housework done at the same time!). The left’s central political philosophy is based on resentment toward historical America.
They’re just like the feminists willing to forgive Bill Clinton for rape. Well, you know, taking in the totality of his contributions … Today, it’s: Who cares what kind of society we become — provided America is no more.
Primitive people will not stop trying to come here until America is no different from Calcutta. Then, liberals’ work will be done. And there will be no charity ward left for anyone to flee to.
That’s how much liberals care about women and children.
Ann Coulter is a syndicated columnist and lawyer.

PAUL KRUGMAN


The disintegration of California, a Mexican satellite welfare state of poverty, crime and high taxes


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/04/paul-krugman-look-at-california-under.html

AMERICA vs MEXICO: CLASHING CULTURES

By Frosty Wooldridge


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/02/obamas-amnesty-and-la-raza-child.html

 Mexicans cheat, distribute drugs, lie, forge documents, steal and kill as if it’s a normal way of life. For them, it is. Mexico’s civilization stands diametrically opposed to America’s culture.



The legal age of sexual consent in Mexico is 12 years old. Sex with children at this age and younger is socially acceptable in Mexico. For example: A Mexican Lopez-Mendez pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a 10 year old girl in West Virginia.


MEXICAN MOLESTATION



MEX GIVES 7-YEAR-OLD CHILD HERPES AFTER REPEATEDLY RAPING HER

 “The molestation was reported after the child was taken to a hospital for an outbreak of genital herpes early this month. When asked how she might have contracted the disease, the child claimed that Morales had molested her “a lot of times.”

"The legal age of sexual consent in Mexico is 12 years old. Sex with children at this age and younger is socially acceptable in Mexico. For example: A Mexican Lopez-Mendez pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a 10-year-old-girl in West Virginia." FROSTY WOOLDRIGE

HOW “CHEAP” IS ALL THAT INVADING “CHEAP” LABOR?

Natalio Vitervo-Vasquez was deported twice but returned to provide “cheap” labor. He can’t read or write and raped his 10-year-old daughter.

“Prosecutors say the girl, who was 11-years-old at the time, went to a medical center where it was determined she was pregnant. Officials say she would have conceived the child at ten years of age.”

THE LA RAZA CRIME TIDAL WAVE
Unlicensed ILLEGAL Daycare Worker Accused of Breaking Child’s Legs

 

Tells Cops: I’d ‘Rather Be Deported than Go to Jail’


“The infant’s legs were reportedly broken below the knees.”


7-Year-Old Unaccompanied Migrant Found with Smuggler in Texas — 80 Miles from Border



















U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents and K-9 security dog keep watch at a checkpoint station, on Feb. 22, 2013, in Falfurrias, Texas. Some drug smugglers caught at the highway checkpoint about an hour north of the Texas-Mexico border are losing their drugs, but not facing prosecution because cooperation between …
AP File Photo/Eric Gay
      239

Border Patrol agents in South Texas found a 7-year-old unaccompanied minor in the custody of a human smuggler 80 miles north of the Texas-Mexico border.
Agents assigned to the Falfurrias Immigration Checkpoint in Brooks County, Texas, observed a 2013 Dodge Caravan approaching for inspection on June 23. Agents referred the driver, a female U.S. citizen, to the secondary inspection station, according to Rio Grande Valley Sector officials.
The woman presented documents claiming the two children inside her vehicle were her children. Further investigation revealed one of the children was not her own, officials stated. Instead, officials identified the child as an unaccompanied minor from Honduras. The minor was not related to the woman or to the child, officials stated.
“It is truly concerning when a child is encountered unaccompanied in the hands of a smuggler,” Rio Grande Valley Sector Chief Patrol Agent Manuel Padilla, Jr. said in a written statement, “It is equally frustrating when a smuggler uses their juvenile child as an accessory to commit such a crime.”
Agents arrested the woman for human smuggling.
Border Patrol agents frequently tell Breitbart Texas that they find people attempting to use unaccompanied minors as some form of shield against deportation when they are found near the border. In this case, the unaccompanied child is transported surreptitiously into the U.S. interior for unknown reasons by a non-related adult who is an American citizen.
“To find an unaccompanied illegal immigrant child with a non-related adult 80 miles inland is particularly disturbing,” Brooks County Sheriff Benny Martinez told Breitbart Texas. “We also find unaccompanied minors being forced to march through very dangerous conditions through ranches to get around the summer heat.”
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTXGAB, and Facebook.

FOR EVERY INVADER CAUGHT THERE ARE EIGHT THAT NEVER ARE!!!

















12 Illegal Immigrants Found in Texas Border City Stash Houses in One Day


USBP Laredo
U.S. Border Patrol
     123

In the border city of Laredo, Texas, U.S. Border Patrol agents and Webb County Sheriff’s Deputies teamed up to target stash house operations run by groups connected to factions of Los Zetas.

In one of the operations, Border Patrol agents and sheriff’s deputies responded to a stash house on South Jarvis Avenue where they found 10 illegal immigrants, primarily males who recently crossed into Texas from Mexico, information released by U.S. Border Patrol revealed. South Jarvis is a few yards away from the banks of the Rio Grande in an area where the river has no fence or other types of physical barrier.
South of Laredo, Texas, in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, human and drug smuggling are largely controlled by the Cartel Del Noreste faction of Los Zetas Cartel; a criminal organization with a reputation for ruthless violence, Breitbart Texas has reported. Most of the smuggling groups encountered by agents in Laredo are connected to CDN operators in Mexico.
In a second raid, USBP agents working with Webb County Sheriff’s Deputies responded to a home off McPherson Avenue where they found two women staying there after illegally crossing from Mexico.
In the same day as the two raids, USBP agents near Laredo saved four illegal immigrants lost in the brush and became ill from heat exposure and dehydration. Authorities responded to a 911 call by the same immigrants who grew desperate after trekking for days to circumvent a Border Patrol checkpoint. According to information released by the agency, the migrants got lost and spent days in 100-degree temperatures before they ran out of water and called for help. It is believed the four men from Mexico would have died if authorities did not render first aid.
Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.  You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com.
Brandon Darby is managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.

ttps://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/feds_finally_take_on_occupy_ice_portland.html
At dawn Thursday, federal forces took the first steps to secure and reopen the ICE HQ in Portland, Oregon. The facility had been shut down for 9 days as hundreds of radical “occupiers” set up a tent city camp and blocked access to the building, preventing its employees from conducting normal business. Initial reports made it appear that the government agents from the Federal Protective Service, dressed in riot gear, meant business.
After the dust settled, a mere eight people had been arrested, charged with minor misdemeanors, and immediately released to rejoin the hundreds of their comrades who remained in the tent city adjacent the building. The Feds promised not to disturb the occupiers’ encampment, only to ensure that the front entrance to the building would be made accessible so normal business could resume next week. After accessing the local media coverage, studying Occupy ICE PDX’sTwitter feed and Web site, and reading the government’s statements, I scored Thursday’s opening round: Occupy ICE PDX 1, Feds Zero.
The events on Thursday in Portland are a case history in how law enforcement in many areas of this country has come to a complete standstill as radical activists not only run wild in the streets but exert a commanding influence on local and state government policy. Portland has declared itself a sanctuary city. This now appears to mean that the city will not cooperate with the Federal government on any law enforcement. The Feds seem absolutely cowed in the face of the well-organized street mobs and their legions of supporters at all levels of Portland’s city government and among its über left population.
The ragtag collection of mostly unemployed counterculture kooks on the streets and sidewalks adjacent to the ICE facility advocate things that once seemed unthinkable. The demands include no borders, no prisons, shutting down ICE, total amnesty and immediate rights of full citizenship for any illegal alien who wants to come here. The radical occupiers issue these demands amidst a hail of obscenities and verbal attacks (“Nazi,” “fascist,” “racist,” and numerous four-letter words). These invectives are  communicated via social media, the use of which the radicals have mastered, and screamed directly in the faces of government employees when they are finally confronted.
Scene outside of Portland ICE HQ June 28, 2018 Source: Twitter
Occupy ICE PDX’s caption: “Federal cops firmly in control of the building. But dozens and dozens of tents remain on adjacent property. Bulk of camp.”
press release from “OccupyICEpdx camp” at 10 A.M. P.T. on June 28 included:
Folx [sic] on the grounds have been engaging in nonviolent protest, peacefully holding the space despite DHS and PPB [Portland Police Bureau] presence. We know that the world is watching, and we are holding strong. . .
We stand in solidarity with undocumented immigrants, who face violence from ICE and DHS every single day. We know that these white supremacist organizations would not hesitate to extend their violence. . .
Our demands still stand:
1. The Portland Police Bureau must withdraw from the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)
2. The City of Portland must end all cooperation, monetary and otherwise, with the Department of Homeland Security
3. Portland must fund an Office of Immigrant Rights, and provide universal immigration legal defense
To the movement that is igniting across the country: be alert but be unafraid. We send our solidarity to camps and prisons everywhere. . .
And, remember what we are fighting for: the complete and final abolition of ICE.
¡Chinga la Migra! [Translation: F-ck U.S. Border Patrol] Abolish ICE! Abolish borders!
Graphic from a tweet by Occupy ICE PDX on June 28 as the group claimed victory
The mayor of Portland, a far left wing Democrat named Ted Wheeler, has totally taken the side of the anti-government radical street mobs. He has ordered Portland’s police to leave the tent city housing radicals and hangers on alone. Still, the Occupy ICE PDX group was angry that Portland police were observed redirecting vehicle traffic as part of a detour to prevent accidents after the Feds temporarily closed the street in front of the ICE building Thursday morning. The mayor’s office quickly tried for a mea culpa with this statement in the name of the vacationing mayor:
This morning, Federal Protective Service officers initiated an action to remove demonstrators from their property. Consistent with my direction, no Portland Police officers provided aid to federal police during this action.
Once on the site, Federal police blocked the roadway. Because motorists were suddenly unable to access the roadway, Portland Police officers arrived to assist motorists in identifying alternative routes around road closures.
I join those outraged by ICE actions separating parents from their children, and support peaceful protest to give voice to our collective moral conscience. The City of Portland does not enforce federal immigration law, and I have been clear that Portland Police will not be used to break up a nonviolent occupation on federal property of a federal agency that has its own police force.
An hour-by-hour account of what went down outside the ICE HQ at 4310 SW Macadam Avenue in Portland on Thursday is too depressing to detail here. Interested readers with their blood pressure under control can access some primary sources from June 28 including the Occupy ICE PDX Twitter account, local coverage by TV stations KOIN6 and KATU2, and published reporting byWilliamette Week and The Oregonian.
As noted in my previous article on the subject published early on June 28, Occupy ICE direct actions have now spread nationwide. Newly created Twitter accounts in different cities follow the same format, for example OccupyIceNYCrepresents the New York cell, while OccupyICEchi points to the direct actions in Chicago. These burgeoning social media platforms gain new followers by the hour as they spew the details to far flung comrades and potential new recruits. The online presentations are aided by a plethora of cell phone videos, manifestos, lists of demands, and clips of local respectful MSM TV news coverage that makes it all sound like a reboot of the 1960s Civil Rights movement.
Occupy ICE NYC spreads its message in Manhattan: At least they didn’t use spray paint Source: Twitter
What the current situation in these cities and nationally actually represents is the most dangerous potential threat to law and order since the Civil War. It’s an insurrection in slow motion that is quickly gaining momentum and followers. While some observers may look back fondly to the 1960s for comparisons, the left wing counter cultural “revolution” then was more limited and constrained, with the Silent Majority still representing most Americans who wanted nothing to do with it. Governments – Federal, state, and local in the ‘60s – had not yet succumbed to the invasive seditious influences that now pervade much of American society including its popular culture and its most prominent institutions. It was a time when the concept of law and order was popular and won elections, as in Richard Nixon’s defeat of Hubert H. Humphrey in 1968 following a year of chaos in the streets.
Hold onto your hats for the next round, scheduled to come to a city and town near you tomorrow, June 30. On the Saturday before the Fourth of July, as described in a fawning article titled “Everything to Know About the Nationwide Immigration Separation Protest” at The Cut at New York Magazine:
Organizers throughout the country will host “Families Belong Together” protests in response to the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance immigration policy. . .
There are more than 628 protests planned in every state, as well as in international locations, on June 30. Altogether, hundreds of thousands of people are expected to demonstrate across the country.
Map of the USA where pro-illegal alien demonstrations are planned for June 30 Source: Families Belong Together
Over 400 organizations are co-sponsoring the June 30th event. Here are a few of them:
ACLU, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc., Council on American-Islamic Relations, In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda, Latino Victory Foundation, LGBTQ Task Force, MoveOn.org, Muslim Advocates, Organizing for Action (a nonprofit 501(c)4 organization and community organizing project that advocates for the agenda of former U.S. President Barack Obama), Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Southern Poverty Law Center, US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, Voto Latino, Women's March (the organization that sponsored the worldwide protests against President Trump on January 21, 2017 that featured the plethora of pink Pussyhats), and YWCA USA.
Dial 2 for English, Source: 
Families Belong Together
Counter protests, anyone?
Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture.  He is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  Follow Peter on Twitter at @pchowka.

Census: Population to 420 million in 2060, 2/3rds immigrants, 79 million




An immigrant woman from Honduras carries her baby inside the Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley on Saturday, June 23, 2018, in McAllen, Texas. Families, who have been processed and released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, wait inside the facility before continuing their journey to cities across the United States.
David J. Phillip/AP










A new analysis of the impact on unrestricted immigration into the United States shows that the nation’s population will jump to 420 million by 2060, driven by an explosion in immigrants and their offspring.
Using Census Bureau data, the group Negative Population Growth said that current policies suggest that 79 million immigrants will boost the population during the period.
“Under current immigration policy U.S. population will rise to 420 million in 2060, versus 341 million if no immigration was allowed over the 2012 to 2060 period. This implies that immigrants arriving over the next 45 years, and their U.S. born children and grandchildren, will add 79 million to U.S. population by 2060. More than two-thirds of U.S. population growth over this period will be due to immigration,” said the new analysis.
The report reviews some of the costs of legal and illegal immigration on the country and taxpayers and makes the case for a national population policy that considers that impact.
It highlights, for example, the 1965 reforms to the Immigration and Nationality Act which were to limit immigration but actually fed it through so-called “chain migration,” where one new immigrant, in an example shown, could bring in some 19 relatives.
The report also puts a spotlight on the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States who automatically become citizens. It describes those babies as “deportation insurance.” The report said:
The U.S.-born baby is, of course, a U.S. citizen, whose illegal alien parents are eligible to receive, on the baby’s behalf, food stamps, nutrition from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and numerous tax benefits, including the EITC.
Most importantly, the newborn is deportation insurance for its parents. Illegal aliens facing deportation can argue that to deport one or more parents would create an “extreme hardship” for the new baby. If an immigration officer agrees, we’ve added a new adult to the nation’s population. At age 21 the former birthright citizen baby can formally apply for green cards for parents and siblings, and they, in turn, can start their own immigration chains.

July 2, 2018

Nothing more ridiculous than AMLO's promise to fight Mexico's 'corruption'

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/nothing_more_ridiculous_than_amlos_promise_to_fight_corruption.html

 

Andrés Manuel López-Obrador won his presidential election in Mexico on a promise to fight "corruption."
Just like all the others.  This gives credence to the political analysis that claims that Mexicans voted for this guy on a roll of the dice after many years of "We've tried A," "We've tried B..."
Now they're trying him.
The problem comes when you take a gander at how he says he's going to fight corruption, known in some Mexican contexts as "la mordida" or bite.  Get a load of how naïve this man is, as described in today's New York Times:
The chronic ills that Mr. López Obrador railed against, propelling him to victory, now become his problems to solve.
Among them is corruption.  On the campaign trail, he was short on details about how he intended to confront the problem, but said he would lead by example: His professed honesty and ethical cleanliness, he said, would flow downward through the ranks of his government and help change the nation’s culture.
What an idiot.  He really thinks that in a culture as steeped in corruption as Mexico, everyone will suddenly want to follow his example and not be corrupt?  What it sounds like is that he will enforce ideological conformity and bust anyone who's not of the same socialist views for "corruption" while leaving his own corrupt people untouched.  There are always just so many people you can arrest, and when corruption is rampant in a system, you pick and choose – which is its own form of corruption.
The "lead by example" idiocy is also in contradiction with a basic understanding of how corruption is fostered in a society.  It's a function of too many rules and too many loopholes that invite exploitation by bureaucrats.  It never seems like corruption at the time, but it rapidly slides downhill as time goes on and advantages are recognized and maximized.  It's the perverse incentives and the unintended consequences.  Want to shut down vineyards to prevent alcoholism, as the Chilean pre-free-market government once tried to do?  Rest assured there will be corrupt payoffs to keep a certain percentage of them open.  That is what we mean by incentives to corruption, and when you have enough well meaning rules and laws, as Chile did and Mexico does, you get amazing opportunities for corruption.  Oh, how well meaning such laws always are, and how inviting they are of payoffs, different laws for different people, and selective enforcement!
Leading by example is going to go nowhere when bureaucrat rice bowls are at stake.  The way to get rid of corruption is to reduce the incentives and opportunities for corruption, because human nature is going to be what it is.  Socialists have never understood human nature, so look forward to nothing coming of such a plan.
Then there's this, from another article in the New York Times:
He said he would fund his programs with the money the nation saves by eliminating corruption, a figure he places at tens of billions of dollars a year, a windfall some experts doubt will materialize.
Ah, yes: the old law enforcement as a means of getting the country rich.  Sounds like a plan.  In fact, the claim has been played many times before against corrupt bureaucrats, and never once has it panned out.  President Obama promised to tax the rich as his means of paying for his programs, and it didn't work out the way he thought it would.  I am also sure AMLO's going to shake down some billionaires for "corruption" to get them politically aligned with himself.  Mexico has a few of those, the same few, virtually always the same ones year after year, according to the Forbes list.  AMLO has seen how Vladimir Putin has shaken down the billies to consolidate control and we can probably count on some empires being broken up.  What we won't count on is new business empires forming in their place, given AMLO's socialist high-tax agenda.  All we will see is political enemies targeted, businesses broken up, and jobs lost.
No, that's not going to pay for anything because it never has.  Even the New York Times is skeptical of that one.

The biggest losers in Mexico's election? The Democrats

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/the_biggest_losers_in_mexicos_election_the_democrats.html

 

 

Every election has winners and losers, and Mexico's is no exception.  While the press is making much of Mexico's centrist PRI and center-right PAN parties being the big losers in last night's election of socialist Andrés Manuel López-Obrador in Mexico, the real loser is actually up north, in the U.S. Democratic Party.
Sounds strange until you look at the details.
After all the ideological compatibility between AMLO's new lefty MORENA party and the increasingly socialist U.S. Democrats seems to be identical.
Both favor heavy social spending, forced unionization of workers, political patronage, Chicago-style political muscle, and fealty to the ideals of the Socialist International.  It's what most socialists do until they run out of Other People's Money.
Democrats have staked their future on uneducated, needy illegals forming the base of their party's fortunes.  In Mexico, AMLO has done the same thing.  The problem comes because the Mexicans in question are the same people.
AMLO's social spending policies are likely to draw Mexicans illegally here in the U.S. back to Mexico.  If you have a choice of taking welfare benefits here or welfare benefits there, it's likely you'll go for them in your home country, where the language is the same, the Migra isn't out looking for you, and you know your way around the culture.  That's bad news for the Democrats, who rely on illegals to lard up their electoral college votes in blue states, increase federal spending based on head counts here, and actually vote illegally in elections, particularly in districts where very few people are in the country legally.
It goes to show that even with ideological conformity, nations have interests, and interests most certainly can conflict.
For many years, I had wondered why what passes for Mexico's conservatives always seemed to be so fiercely aligned to U.S. Democrats.  Why was former Mexican president Vicente Fox, Mexico's first elected conservative via the PAN party, always such a shill for Democrats?  Why was President Felipe Calderón, who came after him, almost as obnoxious?  Why did these people so advocate for an end to U.S. borders and denounce the American people as Nazis for opposing them, despite their being fairly conservative and ideologically recognizable on every other issue?
It turns out their political fortunes were built on getting as many indigent Mexicans out of the country as possible.  Their governments benefited from their absence, both from remittances and in the way they lowered social costs for the Mexican government in terms of housing them, educating them, and providing them with income and health care among other things.  For a conservative government focused on fiscal discipline, it was most certainly in their interest to drive as many of Mexico's poor to El Norte, the better to get the gringo to pay, an old Mexican custom dating from the war of 1848.
Democrats in the U.S., in turn, lapped up the new migrants, with California's Democratic gov. Jerry Brown announcing "you're all welcome here."  His party benefited, and the more, the better.  The Catholic bishops also benefited, hence Steve Bannon's admittedly harsh analysis that the Church was all in for illegals even as it claimed to believe in the rule of law, because of its interest in "filling the pews."
Now comes AMLO, whose big plan is to enact social welfare programs in Mexico, a move that is sure to draw many Mexicans back to their home country.  It makes sense from his point of view and the viewpoint of his national interest, given that Mexico can no longer afford to lose people.  Demographically, the median age is rising there, the population growth has gone flat, and incomes have passed the $7,000-a-year threshold, below which is said to trigger illegal immigration.
Nations always have interests, and this one conflicts with the U.S. Democratic Party's interest, which, up until now, aligned with the interests of Mexico's conservatives.
AMLO, if you look carefully at his words, seems cognizant of Democrats recognizing this and maybe getting angry about it, thus he has offered up to his ideological coevals in the States the "human right" of illegal immigration to the U.S. as a sop, using other people's countries instead of his own.  Here are his words:
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) declared mass immigration to the United States a "human right" for all North Americans during a speech Tuesday.
"And soon, very soon – after the victory of our movement – we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."
He then declared migration "a human right we will defend," eluniversal.com reports.
What we are looking at here is a bid to ship illegals from other countries through Mexico to the U.S. (to keep Democrats happy), while implicitly discouraging Mexican illegal immigration, which has drained the country of talent.  There is no other explanation for such a policy.  Turning Mexico into a road stop for illegals from Central America and elsewhere by calling it a "human right" is frankly toxic for Mexico, because it will empower cartels and give Mexico's government nothing, not even remittances, and plenty of enmity with the U.S.  What's more, it should serve as an electoral mobilizer for Republicans, who will be angry at the move.
Net effect: another loss for Democrats, in terms of lost people it intended to build its party fortunes on and in energizing Republicans.  They're not going to like this.

Billionaire Mexicans tell their poor to JUMP U.S. OPEN BORDERS and LOOT THE STUPID GRINGO… and loot they do!

Billions of dollars are sucked out of America from Mexico’s looting!


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

The biggest losers in Mexico's election? The Democrats


Every election has winners and losers, and Mexico's is no exception.  While the press is making much of Mexico's centrist PRI and center-right PAN parties being the big losers in last night's election of socialist Andrés Manuel López-Obrador in Mexico, the real loser is actually up north, in the U.S. Democratic Party.
Sounds strange until you look at the details.
After all the ideological compatibility between AMLO's new lefty MORENA party and the increasingly socialist U.S. Democrats seems to be identical.
Both favor heavy social spending, forced unionization of workers, political patronage, Chicago-style political muscle, and fealty to the ideals of the Socialist International.  It's what most socialists do until they run out of Other People's Money.
Democrats have staked their future on uneducated, needy illegals forming the base of their party's fortunes.  In Mexico, AMLO has done the same thing.  The problem comes because the Mexicans in question are the same people.
AMLO's social spending policies are likely to draw Mexicans illegally here in the U.S. back to Mexico.  If you have a choice of taking welfare benefits here or welfare benefits there, it's likely you'll go for them in your home country, where the language is the same, the Migra isn't out looking for you, and you know your way around the culture.  That's bad news for the Democrats, who rely on illegals to lard up their electoral college votes in blue states, increase federal spending based on head counts here, and actually vote illegally in elections, particularly in districts where very few people are in the country legally.
It goes to show that even with ideological conformity, nations have interests, and interests most certainly can conflict.
For many years, I had wondered why what passes 
for Mexico's conservatives always seemed to be so
fiercely aligned to U.S. Democrats.  Why was 
former Mexican president Vicente Fox, Mexico's 
first elected conservative via the PAN party, 
always such a shill for Democrats?  Why was 
President Felipe Calderón, who came after him, 
almost as obnoxious?  Why did these people so 
advocate for an end to U.S. borders and denounce 
the American people as Nazis for opposing them, 
despite their being fairly conservative and 
ideologically recognizable on every other issue?
It turns out their political fortunes were built on getting as many indigent Mexicans out of the country as possible.  Their governments benefited from their absence, both from remittances and in the way they lowered social costs for the Mexican government in terms of housing them, educating them, and providing them with income and health care among other things.  For a conservative government focused on fiscal discipline, it was most certainly in their interest to drive as many of Mexico's poor to El Norte, the better to get the gringo to pay, an old Mexican custom dating from the war of 1848.
Democrats in the U.S., in turn, lapped up the new migrants, with California's Democratic gov. Jerry Brown announcing "you're all welcome here."  His party benefited, and the more, the better.  The Catholic bishops also benefited, hence Steve Bannon's admittedly harsh analysis that the Church was all in for illegals even as it claimed to believe in the rule of law, because of its interest in "filling the pews."
Now comes AMLO, whose big plan is to enact social welfare programs in Mexico, a move that is sure to draw many Mexicans back to their home country.  It makes sense from his point of view and the viewpoint of his national interest, given that Mexico can no longer afford to lose people.  Demographically, the median age is rising there, the population growth has gone flat, and incomes have passed the $7,000-a-year threshold, below which is said to trigger illegal immigration.
Nations always have interests, and this one conflicts with the U.S. Democratic Party's interest, which, up until now, aligned with the interests of Mexico's conservatives.
AMLO, if you look carefully at his words, seems cognizant of Democrats recognizing this and maybe getting angry about it, thus he has offered up to his ideological coevals in the States the "human right" of illegal immigration to the U.S. as a sop, using other people's countries instead of his own.  Here are his words:
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) declared mass immigration to the United States a "human right" for all North Americans during a speech Tuesday.
"And soon, very soon – after the victory of our movement – we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."
He then declared migration "a human right we will defend," eluniversal.com reports.
What we are looking at here is a bid to ship illegals from other countries through Mexico to the U.S. (to keep Democrats happy), while implicitly discouraging Mexican illegal immigration, which has drained the country of talent.  There is no other explanation for such a policy.  Turning Mexico into a road stop for illegals from Central America and elsewhere by calling it a "human right" is frankly toxic for Mexico, because it will empower cartels and give Mexico's government nothing, not even remittances, and plenty of enmity with the U.S.  What's more, it should serve as an electoral mobilizer for Republicans, who will be angry at the move.
Net effect: another loss for Democrats, in terms of lost people it intended to build its party fortunes on and in energizing Republicans.  They're not going to like this.


SOCIALIST “MESSIAH” ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR WINS MEXICAN PRESIDENCY


Why AMLO is malo for Mexico and USA.


Leftist Wins Mexico Presidency in Landslide With Mandate to Reshape Nation,” proclaimed the headline in the New York Times late Sunday. The leftist is Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also known as AMLO, and his landslide victory “upended the nation’s political establishment and handed him a sweeping mandate to reshape the country.” 
Some are hailing AMLO as a “messiah,” and he says he wants to maintain close relations with the United States. On that theme his pre-election pronouncements need attention.
In late June, López Obrador said that soon after the victory of his National Regeneration Movement, “we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world.” Immigrants, he said, “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States” and this was “a human right we will defend.” So the new Mexican president wants to dictate policy for the United States, no surprise given the dynamics driving illegal immigration. 
Previous waves of immigrants entered the USA legally and none from Poland, Italy or Ireland thought their nation held a claim to Vermont or Massachusetts. Mexicans tend to enter the USA illegally because they believe that the American southwest was “stolen” from them, and so they are only entering their own country. For the record, in 1848, a full 170 years ago and 13 years before the Civil War, an outnumbered American force defeated Mexico, which duly signed a treaty ceding those lands. 
Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” 
This master-race theory, as the Communist Bert Corona called it, is certified gospel for politicians such as California senate boss Kevin de Leon who wrote the state’s sanctuary law. That’s why he gives state jobs to false-documented illegals, a violation of state law. California privileges illegals with in-state tuition and admission preference on the basis of ethnicity, another violation of state law. 
If the illegals are violent criminals, de Leon, governor Jerry Brown and attorney general Xavier Becerra believe they are still better people and protect them from deportation. And this fall one million illegals could be voting in California alone
Like-minded Democrats in many states form a kind of Mexican Occupational Government (MOGO), ignoring U.S. law and serving the interests of Mexico. In effect, recent anti-ICE demonstrations functioned as campaign rallies for Lopez Obrador, on record that he won’t do Trump’s “dirty work” by restraining illegal crossing of Mexico’s own southern border. 
As the New York Times noted, AMLO’s opponents compared him to Hugo Chavez, the former socialist leader of Venezuela. The socialist Chavez took over the richest economy in South America, with the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Venezuela since has become a nightmare of hyperinflation, violence and poverty. Food is so scare that, as the Independent notes, “three in four citizens report involuntary weight loss, averaging 19 pounds in a year.”
AMLO may make great promises but like Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro his leftist policies are certain to be malo for the Mexican economy. That will prompt more Mexicans to “leave their towns and find a life in the United States,” which AMLO believes is a “human right.”
President Trump must not allow AMLO to dictate American policy. The president should continue construction of the wall, step up deportations, reinforce ICE and send more troops to the border. 
In an April speech, AMLO said Mexico would not become a “piñata” for any foreign government. From January to November 2017, Mexicans in the United States sent back $26.1 billion, impossible without massive input from American taxpayers. So the USA is Mexico’s piñata, not the reverse, and president Trump should move to tax, restrict or halt remittances to Mexico. 
The president might also run some numbers on what U.S. taxpayers have spent to house criminal Mexican nationals such as Juan Corona, who murdered at least 25 Americans, and racist cop killer Luis Bracamontes, who in court yelled “black lives don’t matter.” 
The Mexican election served as a primary for activists such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of Democratic Socialists of America. The affluent Bernie Sanders acolyte, 28, thinks the anti-ICE message can help Democrats capture the Midwest and has rapped Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who doesn’t think so. 
The mid-terms might also function as a test of how much Americans are going to take from MOGO types on behalf of people who aren’t supposed to be in the country. Meanwhile, an important date is coming before November.  
In 2014, Mexican police opened fire on a bus, killing six students and more than 40 others are still missing. Former Mexican president Vincente Fox tells the parents “it’s about time” they give up their demands on the Mexican government and “accept reality.” 
Those students were heading for a protest of the Tlatelolco Massacre, when Mexican troops gunned down hundreds of protesters. The 50th anniversary is coming up on October 2. It will be interesting to see what socialist messiah Andrés Manuel López Obrador has to say about it. 



One new Mexican president. Dozens of new reasons to build the wall.




In Mexico, it is often impolite to tell someone "No."  If you want to spare someone's feelings, many people say "Maybe."
Everyone knows that means "No."
Mexico stopped worrying about American feelings long ago.  Among the fashionable public officials and academics, scorn has been the ruling emotion for decades.  We see that more recently in the last week's elections.
Pretending otherwise is just too much work in Mexico today.  The new president declares he is a socialist, but he will be hard pressed to show how his new socialist policies are at all different from the old socialist policies that govern so many parts of Mexican life.  That's what we said about Venezuela, come to think of it.
Those who predict that their "Fill in Blank" Latin American country has finally bottomed out and is now turning around are often, even invariably, wrong.
But at least admitting they are socialists has the added benefit of sticking a finger in the eye of their terrible neighbors to the north – who everyone knows ruined Mexico by stealing a good chunk of the country in 1848.
Anyone who reads the daily papers in Mexico is reminded of that 157-year-old treaty every day: for most of the country, the national slogan and curse remains "Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States."  We can even hear it today from Mexican nationals and their descendants in the U.S. who glorify La Raza at the expense of their adopted country.
Oh, and by the way, Americans are still waiting for any kind of public display of support for those who died on 9-11.  Mexicans largely ignored it, when they were not supporting it behind closed doors at their local universities.
The truly troubling pronouncements out of Mexico City are even easier to find.  The newly elected president, Andrés López-Obrador, was gleeful during the election when he told his compadres they should all move to America, illegally.  His encouragement along with his pro-poverty policies will set the stage for another tsunami of illegal immigration.
Then members of López-Obrador's Cabinet-in-waiting started talking about the war on drug cartels, and why should Mexico do America's dirty work?
The first statement does not need much interpretation, other than the obvious but often ignored: the new president of Mexico is encouraging his countrymen to invade the United States.  Not with guns and soldiers, but with campesinos and huaraches.
It's a bitter and hostile act that we should treat as such.
The new talk about amnesty for drug-dealers is even crazier.  This is just an admission of what anyone who cares to already knows: Mexico is run by a collection of drug cartels and other violent outlaws.  This collection of criminals has killed thousands of public officials, policemen, and reporters – all in the name of preserving a criminal status quo that no one even feels like pretending does not exist anymore.  They even write songs glorifying them.
They get what they want when they want it.
That is why we cannot build the Coulter-Trump Border Wall fast enough, tall enough, and proudly enough.
In addition to writing scintillating bestsellers about black violence in America, good ol' Colin Flaherty also covered Mexico for several newspapers and radio stations in San Diego, back in the day.