THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY ILLEGALS HAVE INVADED AND VOTED DEM FOR MORE!
NY Times: ‘Tidal Wave’ of Mass Immigration Hands Virginia to Democrats
3:46
A “tidal wave” of mass immigration has “tilt(ed) the field toward the Democrats” in the state of Virginia, the New York Times admits.
Last week, Democrats took control of Virginia’s House of Delegates and the State Senate. Now, the Democrats hold power over the state’s legislature, the governor’s seat and the lieutenant governor’s seat — the first time since 1993 that this has occurred.
The New York Times now admits that four to five decades of mass immigration — where about 1.2 million legal immigrants are admitted to the United States every year — has shifted Virginia into a blue state:
Not long ago, this rolling green stretch of Northern Virginia was farmland. Most people who could vote had grown up here. And when they did, they usually chose Republicans. [Emphasis added]The fields of Loudoun County are disappearing. In their place is row upon row of cookie-cutter townhouses, clipped lawns and cul-de-sacs — a suburban landscape for as far as the eye can see. Unlike three decades ago, the residents are often from other places, like India and Korea. And when they vote, it is often for Democrats. [Emphasis added]…“It’s a totally different world,” said Charles Poland, 85, a retired history professor whose family has lived in Loudoun County for four generations. His family farm is now dotted with subdivisions filled with four and five-bedroom homes that sell for $750,000. The family legacy is a road named Poland. “If my parents came back today, they wouldn’t recognize the place. The changes came like a tidal wave.” [Emphasis added]
As Breitbart News analyzed, Virginia’s foreign-born population has boomed over the last few decades. In 1990, Virginia was home to less than 312,000 foreign-born residents. Today, there are close to 1.1 million, almost four times what the population was three decades before.
In 2019, 1-in-10 Virginia residents are foreign-born. In 1990, only about 1-in-28 residents were born outside the U.S.
(Screenshot via the New York Times)
A 38-year-old immigrant from India interviewed by the New York Times explained that he voted for Democrats in the recent Virginia election because he supports gun control measures, calling it the “most pressing issue” for him.
Under current legal immigration levels, the U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country.
Republicans’ electoral prospects are only expected to get worse because of historically high legal immigration levels, according to research by Axios and the Atlantic.
Ronald Brownstein, senior editor for the Atlantic, noted this year that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. This means that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding roughly 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.
The impact of legal immigration levels was evident in the 2016 election despite President Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton. Among native-born Americans, Trump won 49 percent to Clinton’s 45 percent, according to exit polling data. Among foreign-born residents, Clinton dominated against Trump, garnering 64 percent of the immigrant population’s vote compared to Trump’s mere 31 percent.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Fairfax County, Virginia
Presents Dire Warning to America
My home county of Fairfax, Virginia was
once a safe suburban area with some of the best performing public schools in
the nation. It's now a blinking warning sign to America as it hangs
on the edge of complete disaster thanks to unchecked immigration and Democrat
takeover of the government.
Even with the high concentration of
government workers, Fairfax County was once a Republican bastion before it
became a political battleground. The Bush/Cheney ticket won the county in a close race in 2000 and then lost it badly in
2004 due to a significant increase in Democrat votes.
Fairfax's descent into its current state
started with a wave immigration, much of it illegal, into the area which washed
away Republican political viability.
Fairfax County became a nullification (sanctuary) county in 2018 and now puts a significant
chunk of money into its budget to defend noncitizens from U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, although the problem started long before
that. By 2015, 30% of the county was foreign-born.
MI-13, a brutal criminal gang, is now more
active than ever, and the once marquee schools have started what will be a long
slide through mediocrity to abysmal.
Fairfax just ranked seventh among the highest-crime sanctuary
jurisdictions, ranking just below Chicago and tied with a nearby Maryland
county that has had at least nine illegal alien sexual assaults since its sanctuary policy was
declared in late July. That's staggering. Fairfax County
now is on a list of shame with Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and San
Francisco.
Even apart from the rapidly deteriorating
safety, the schools are sinking under the fiscal and social
costs. It costs on average $15,283 to educate each of the 188,000 students
in the county. That's an enormous bill, and the cost for
limited–English proficiency students is likely about $10,000 higher per
student.
Back in 2015, when the problem was nowhere
near as acute as today, nearby Alexandria County spent over 45% of its instructional funding on
limited English proficiency students.
In this context, flooding the county with
noncitizens who are contributing little tax revenue must result in worse
schools and far higher taxes. It's a mathematical certainty.
But the flood of new residents achieved
its primary purpose, which was to make the ground here far more hospitable for
Democrat politicians. Nearly 12,000 county residents were in deportation proceedings late
last year, which the county is vigorously fighting in the interest of political
power.
This once Republican bastion is now a no
man's land for Republicans. On the single greatest day of 2016,
Donald Trump was way ahead in Virginia with most of the vote
counted. But anyone who dared to hope that this was still a
battleground state was in for a rude awakening when the votes from the northern
Virginia counties were added to the tally.
Virginia is gone. The only
difference between Virginia and California is in the shade of
blue. The state will trend ever darker blue barring a significant
change in the voting patterns of the newer residents.
The dominoes continue to
fall. Fairfax fell early, even as neighboring Prince William County
remained in Republican hands. But that county is also now in
deep trouble, and other dominoes will spread out from there, county by
county. This is the same path that Texas is on, only it is a little
farther behind.
The Democrat votes brought a Democrat
school board, along with local county leadership. This meant the
adoption of a policy framework called "One Fairfax" in November 2017.
"One Fairfax" is representative
of what is happening across the country. A constellation of groups
with backers like George Soros are active across America, subverting local
governments and education. As the Daily Caller noted, these groups are already active in 33 cities and
counties, covering 10% of Americans.
The "One Fairfax" name brings to
mind Sauron's one ring to rule them all from The
Lord of the Rings. Like that ring, One Fairfax is
intended to destroy all dissent or resistance and to force absolute
subservience and surrender. The key buzzword used to squash dissent
is "equity," which is intended to shut down debate.
All policies are now looked at through the
rubric of race and the liberal conception of social justice with the goal of
absolute political power. Liberals use friendly terms like
"equity" to hide their true goal, which is a complete reshaping of
the county in a Marxist image, where the only thing that matters is some
conception of equality of outcomes.
One can almost envision the superintendent
holding a map and redrawing lines, muttering, "My precious."
The social engineering leftists of the
school board were secretly plotting to redraw district lines for the express
purpose of achieving equal racial balance across the schools, to include
reinstituting failed busing schemes of yesteryear. They were only
temporarily thwarted in this agenda when county residents grew wise to their
scheme and stormed their meeting.
There is scant attention paid to actually
improving the schools and equipping the teachers to deal with the challenges
created by failed policies. My wife is a teacher in the county and
brings home horror stories beyond belief. The teachers, who all must
attend equity training, have little authority to discipline increasingly unruly
kids, some of whom barely speak English, even as class sizes grow.
Even as the teachers face incredible
challenges due to the bad policies that wrecked the schools, the school board recently spent an hour debating "International
Menstrual Equity" in the belief that what was really hurting student
achievement was that girls had to go all the way to the clinic to get free
menstrual products and had to conduct a "walk of
shame." This is apparently a dire problem even in elementary
schools. Lack of discipline or support in overfilled
classrooms? No problem. The lack of tampon Pez dispensers
scattered throughout the hallways? Major crisis.
The lens of race is now the primary
weapon, even at the local level, used to justify the most corrosive and
destructive policies, and anyone who objects to their social engineering
schemes is automatically branded as a racist.
Their "race lens" is
outrageously racist, since it assumes that some races need their social
engineering help. There is little difference between the schools
with more resources going to schools in less affluent areas. So they
are tacitly arguing that the difference is in the students
themselves. They would rather move the students great distances to
achieve a racial balance than focus on providing education where they live.
In the politicians' quest for power, the
kids and teachers are sacrificed as pawns, left to fend for themselves in
failing classes that have been social engineered into lunacy.
Fairfax is our country in a
microcosm. What happened here is happening all over
America. If we don't reverse the trends, both at the local and
national level, the long-term prognosis on America is not promising. While
the battle will rage on at the local level, Virginia is lost to the Democrats
at the national and soon state level. Other states, to include
Texas, aren't far behind.
Fletch Daniels blogs at
deplorabletouchdown.com and can be found on Twitter at @fletchdaniels.
Welcome to the Democrat Freak Show
The Democrats' working families, small business growth, and
national security plan is as follows: raise our taxes; abolish private-pay
health insurance; take our guns; regulate our industries out of existence; take
what's left of our salaries to pay for slavery reparations and abortions for
men; exploit our youths into Vlad Lenin idol-worshiping Redcoat Hitler Youth;
and open our borders indefinitely, suborning illegal aliens to break laws
without consequences. Oh, and don't forget the "free"
health care for illegal aliens!
There are "Truman Show" narratives, and there's
reality. What was heard on the stages of the first two Democrat 2020
"debates" was the antithesis of what the majority of Americans in the
majority of states want: nationalism and strong state sovereignty, fewer taxes
and less government spending, guaranteed constitutional rights upheld by our
courts and lawmakers, and good ol' common sense. There wasn't much
"debating"; all 20 candidates, including the complicit NBC
moderators, peddled virtually identical anti-American and anti-nationalist
polices. One wrestled with whether to laugh or to cry,
mortified.
Are the Democrat candidates trying to lose? A century
after Major League Baseball's Black Sox Scandal, one would be forgiven for
mistaking the Democrats as the political equivalent of the Sox. I
don't believe that the freaks are trying to lose, but I'm confident that they
know what they're selling isn't the Glengarry leads.
The only Democrats who should frighten us more than those who
don't believe the inanity they peddle are the ones who do. The
Democrats' 2020 platform is tailored to the tens of millions of young voters they've spent the last two
decades exploiting via A
Clockwork Orange Ludovico-esque techniques and tactics. The
people on these stages are worse than fringe wackos, conspiracy theorists and
anti-Semites, such as Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan, because they're
established, accepted figures within one of our two major parties. The
syllabus of their political education includes sharia theocracy, Marxism,
Leninism, communism, socialism, Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism. The
freaks are the anthropomorphic amalgamation of the worst mass-suffering,
oppressive ideologies in world history. Listen to how Democrats
talk: we're going to take your money, take your guns, put you in jail, put you
out of business. That tens of millions nationwide cheerlead for this
is horrifying.
Democrats want us fearing the government; when the people are
afraid of the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the
people, there is liberty.
Perhaps this is just me playing scared, but we can't take our eye
off the ball in any state next year. There are no more guaranteed
red states — only blue and purple states. With the announcement
earlier this week by the Trump administration that our 2020 Census will not
include the citizenship question, this is now especially true; the Census count
won't affect 2020, but it will 2022–2032.
Dangerous, Desperate Democrats
Remember this: as much hatred of Trump as there was in 2016, it
will have had 48 months to fester come 2020. A desperate enemy — one
willing to sacrifice its own offspring for self-preservation — is a dangerous
enemy.
I do often wonder: does our side understand just how much effort
Democrats exert to conquer us? Democrats are militant; I see no way
to defeat them unless we reciprocate with more effort and more
intensity. Our preference is be left alone, with our rights intact
and un-infringed. Democrats, however, believe the opposite: no one
who shuns the Democrat death cult should ever be left alone. For
God's sake, America twice elected a guy in President Obama who, as a community
organizer, was paid to agitate and harass Chicagoans who were too busy raising
families and operating their businesses to worship at the secular altar of
"progressivism" and "fundamental transformation."
Democrat politicians are just taxpayer-funded activists who come
to Miami, Florida and quote Che Guevera, a murderous terrorist who killed some
of the ancestors of the Cubans who live in Miami. Politics is a
vanity project for Democrat lawmakers; they have no interest in governing or
representing. Their interest is in owning and manacling you, your
families, and your livelihoods.
Yes, to some extent, every president is an
activist. The reality is, though, that the majority of people in the
majority of states doesn't want an activist president; we want a fighter, a
doer, and a nationalist worker — someone who combines Jeffersonian 10th
Amendment lowercase-"r" republicanism, a healthy skepticism of
federal overreach and constitutional textualist originalism with Adamsian
federalism, which seeks that ever-elusive harmony between states and a stable,
centralized federal government. Trump was never mistaken for a
constitutionalist, but his commonsense instincts have, for the most part,
beautifully aligned with the common sense of our foundational legal
contract. As we celebrate our nation's 243rd birthday, let us not
forget that our Founders, like Trump, were not politicians.
The constant battle against the Democrats is exhausting but
necessary. We are without a choice. If you haven't had
cold-sweat nightmares from what you heard at the first two "debates,"
you're not paying close enough attention. The only way to deal with
these people is to beat them into political submission.
I pray that the Democrat 2020 ticket will be
Biden/Warren. I want Biden because I want us to plant the tombstone
at the grave of Obama's legacy. I want him to feel the sting of
losing and coming so close; losing in the primary would be a wholly
unsatisfactory denouement. Defeating Hillary Clinton was somewhat
defeating Obama. Biden, conversely, is an extension of Obama, who
once called Biden the greatest vice president in American history.
Those on our side who are not yet taking the Democrat threat
seriously need to get on the team right now. We needed every vote we
could muster in 2016. This election should not be merely about
winning — it should be about winning big, about continuing the reformation of
our country into the kind of republic our Founders envisioned: self-rule,
self-governing, self-regulating.
I expect a 35- to 40-state win next year; that's the good
news. The bad? If you think the Democrats are scary now,
just wait until 2021. They'll make Obama look like
Trump. Despite our win in 2016, and our anticipated win next year,
the war to take our country back is just getting started. There are
only two sides: America and the Democrats. What side are you on?
Rich Logis is host of The
Rich Logis Show,
at TheRichLogisShow.com,
and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your
Child Is Becoming a Democrat. He
can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.
Democrats Circling the Electoral Drain
Democrats have convinced themselves that
they represent the sentiments of a majority of Americans. Watching the recent
Democrat presidential debates, one cannot help but conclude the opposite.
Rather than looking beyond their liberal
coastal enclaves to the fruited plain filled with deplorables and bitter
clingers, Democrats simply look in the mirror of CNN or the Washington Post to
see complete agreement, believing that all of America is on board with their
wrecking ball agenda.
The debates featured the 20 best
candidates the Democrats could field to challenge the success and charisma of
President Trump. Assuming a fifty-fifty political split in America, and the age
requirement for the presidency, there should be 50-75 million potential
Democrats to step up and challenge Trump. Yet these 20 candidates are the best
out there?
We have nonagenarians who have been in government for decades
with no accomplishments to their names other than getting elected. Most of the
candidates are so far to the political left that they should be running as
socialists, or better yet, communists. The only thing separating the candidates
are their looks and personalities. They all sing the same
tune.
Their favored constituencies are not
Americans, but instead anyone outside America’s borders, invited into America
to live at the expense of American taxpayers. Robert O’Rourke is even campaigning in Mexico, to be president, not of Mexico, but of
the United States.
Democrats want to get rid of private
health care insurance for Americans and instead provide free government health
care to illegal immigrants. Non-Americans go to the front of the line while
Americans can’t even join the line.
One candidate couldn’t even be bothered
with policy specifics, instead channeling the Beatles “All you need is love” to
solve the world’s problems.
What do those outside the beltway think?
Are they on board with America going the way of California, as a detour to the
ultimate destination of Cuba or Venezuela?
Rasmussen Reports on June 28 published
survey results concluding, “Voters see most Democrat presidential hopefuls as more liberal,
extreme.” This was a survey of likely voters, 80 percent of whom say they have
“closely followed the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.”
These are real voters, not your typical
man or woman on the street that many pollsters query, who when interviewed,
don’t know if John Hickenlooper is a former Colorado governor or the name of a
new brand of popcorn.
From the survey, “Nearly half (48%) of
voters now feel it is accurate to describe the agenda of most of the Democratic
presidential hopefuls as extreme.” Democrat voters, the base for the twenty
candidates on the debate stage, are mostly on board with this lurch to the
left, “57% of Democrats think it is accurate to describe the agenda of most of
their presidential hopefuls as mainstream.”
What do the other 43 percent of Democrats
think? How many might vote for Trump rather than someone wanting to Make
America Soviet Again?
Independents, who will in large part
decide the 2020 electoral winner, were not impressed with the two-evening clown
show last week. “Fifty-eight percent (58%) of these so-called swing voters view
most of the announced Democratic White House hopefuls as more liberal than they
are, and by a 49% to 29% margin, they say the agenda of most of these
candidates is extreme.”
For NBC debate moderators and hardcore
Democrats, open borders, free healthcare for illegals, and trans-men having
abortions is perfectly mainstream. Extremism to them is record low
unemployment, three percent economic growth, and the American President
visiting North Korea.
Here they are raising their hands in
unison supporting healthcare for illegals.
For most Americans, extreme is when a
journalist is attacked and beaten by Antifa thugs in Portland. But for rabid
Democrats, it’s justified or deserved since the journalist is conservative,
ignoring the fact that he is Asian and gay. Note the far different response
when a gay black actor, Jussie Smollett, claimed to have been attacked in
Chicago.
Despite Smollett’s story being full of
holes, and quickly proven to be a hoax, the left came to his defense. Ngo’s
attack was anything but a hoax, having been captured on video, yet only
crickets from tolerant and inclusive Democrats. Will Democrat presidential
candidates be asked to raise their hands to denounce Antifa, the new militant
arm of their party? Not likely. How many voters want this type of extremism as
the new norm in American cities?
Hard core leftists however think this is
all just fine. Stephanie Wilkinson, owner of the Red Hen restaurant in
Virginia, who kicked out Sarah Sanders and her family, wrote an op-ed in the
Washington Post extolling the new leftist restaurant etiquette. “New rules apply. If you’re directly complicit in
spreading hate or perpetuating suffering, maybe you should consider dining at
home. For the rest, your table is waiting.”
In other words, if you support President
Trump, stay home. You are not welcome at our lunch counters or restaurants. Sit
in the back of the bus. Democrats are going back to their segregationist roots, discriminating now based on political
belief rather than skin color. Unless of course you are Candace Owens or Ben
Carson getting a double dose of discrimination.
Democrats believe this is a winning
message. Agree with us or go away, voluntarily or forcefully, in Orwellian
fashion. Joseph Stalin would be proud.
Democrats are pushing the issues important
to MSNBC and the New York Times, but not to voters. Also from Rasmussen in
mid-May, a survey of the most pressing issues for Congress. These don’t
include Trump’s past tax returns or a rehash of the Mueller investigation, but
instead 35 percent of likely voters “rate illegal immigration as the issue
Congress should deal with first.”
Guess what Trump’s signatures issue is?
Illegal immigration. Stopping it, not encouraging it by offering free
healthcare to anyone who makes it across our border.
Next of importance for Congress, “Healthcare
is in distant second with 19% support, closely followed by 16% who see Trump’s
impeachment as first in importance.”
Voters want our healthcare system to be
fixed, but not in the way of Democrats wanting to eliminate private insurance.
Some Democrats in Congress are listening to voters’ third priority of
impeachment, mostly Democrats, but the few voices of sanity in the Democrat
party realize impeachment is a loser for them.
Democrat presidential candidates find
themselves on the wrong side of almost every issue of concern to voters. Rather
than acknowledging and correcting, they lurch further and further to the left,
trying to be more socialist and woke than the other candidates, digging
themselves into a deeper hole for the general election.
It’s a sight to behold as they continue to
circle the electoral drain, oblivious to anything outside the beltway media and
each other. Trump’s campaign commercials are writing themselves and upcoming
Trump rallies and presidential debates will be most entertaining. Have your
popcorn ready.
Brian C Joondeph, MD, is a Denver based
physician and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker,
Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.
Eliseo Medina: Revolution
Through Illegal Immigration
https://www.theepochtimes.com/eliseo-medina-revolution-through-illegal-immigration_2748588.html?ref=brief_Archives&utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=6432f3abd5-
“Before
immigration debates took place in Washington, I spoke with Eliseo Medina
and SEIU members,” said then-Sen. Barack Obama, addressing the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) at a stop for his 2008 presidential campaign.
Eliseo Medina, Obama’s
informal immigration adviser, has dedicated his life to obtaining citizenship
and voting rights for America’s illegal aliens—now at an estimated 22
million—with the expressed goal of transforming the United States into a
one-party state.
As a Communist
Party USA (CPUSA) supporter and former honorary chair of the largest Marxist
organization in the United States, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA),
Medina is undeniably the leader of today’s amnesty movement.
At the far-left “America’s Future Now!”
conference in Washington on June 2, 2009, Medina, then SEIU’s international
executive vice president, addressed attendees on the vital importance
of “comprehensive immigration reform”—a code phrase for amnesty.
Medina failed to mention the plight of illegal
aliens, focusing instead on how—if given amnesty—they would eventually vote for
Democrats.
Speaking of Latino voting patterns in the 2008
election, Medina said:
“When
they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive
candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.
“So, I think
there’s two things that matter for the progressive community:
“Number one:
If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to
solidly be on the side of immigrants. That will solidify and expand the
progressive coalition for the future.
“Number two:
[If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to
citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have—even the same
ratio—two out of three?
“If we have 8
million new voters … we will create a governing coalition for the long term,
not just for an election cycle.”
Medina’s “governing coalition” refers to
Democrats having control of the federal government for the foreseeable future,
“not just for an election cycle.”
Who Is Eliseo Medina?
Medina‘s road to power began in 1965 when, as a
19-year-old grape-picker, he participated in the United Farm Workers’ strike in
Delano, California. Over the next 13 years, Medina worked alongside labor
leader and beloved socialist Cesar Chavez, eventually surpassing his mentor as
a skilled union organizer and political strategist. Medina met his future wife
Liza Hirsch during this period.
Medina had met Chicago DSA comrades in the
1970s when he was in the Windy City organizing a grape boycott for Chavez. From
2004 until 2016, Medina served as an honorary chairman for the organization.
Like many DSA members, Medina also worked
closely with the CPUSA.
Medina gave the keynote speech at the CPUSA
publication’s People’s Weekly World (PWW) banquet in Berkeley, California, on
Nov. 18, 2001.
The PWW quoted Medina
praising the communist publication: “’Wherever
workers are in struggle,’ Medina said, ‘they find the PWW regularly reporting
issues and viewpoints that are seldom covered by the regular media. For us, the
PWW has been and always will be the people’s voice.’”
In 2007, Medina personally endorsed the
People’s World (by then renamed from People’s Weekly World).
Medina’s Wife and Flexible Socialist Ethics
Medina’s wife, Liza, is the daughter of Fred
Hirsch, a self-described “communist plumber” and his
even-more-radical wife, Virginia, known as Ginny. In the early 1960s, Ginny Hirsch left her husband and
young children in San Jose while she drove to Guatemala with nearly a ton of
smuggled ammunition destined for leftist rebels.
From the age of 12, Liza Hirsch was partially
raised by Cesar Chavez and, at his personal request, committed herself at an
early age to earning a law degree so she could serve as an attorney for the
movement.
Though a sometimes-socialist himself, Chavez
had no time for illegal aliens (who he dubbed “wet-backs”) fearing they would
“scab” against his strikes and take jobs from his members. Chavez even launched
an “Illegals Campaign”—an organized program to identify illegal alien workers
in the fields and turn them in to the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS).
Hirsch was put in charge of this program. In
1974, just before she went to law school, she “distributed forms printed in
triplicate to all union offices and directed staff members to document the
presence of illegal immigrants in the fields and report them to the INS,”
according to the book “The Crusades of Cesar Chavez” by Miriam Pawel.
Hirsch would later marry New York DSA
member Paul Du Brul. After his untimely death, she
married Medina, also a card-carrying DSA member by then.
Socialist ethics can be very flexible.
Changing the Democrat Position to Pro-Amnesty
Medina joined the SEIU in 1986, where he helped revive a local union in San Diego,
building its membership from 1,700 to more than 10,000 in five years. Medina
became international executive vice president of the 2.2 million-member SEIU in
1996.
The SEIU has a huge number of illegal alien
workers in its ranks. Medina used that leverage to promote amnesty in the union
movement, as well as in the organized left and in the Democratic Party.
In the mid-1990s, most unions were still
hostile to illegal alien workers who worked at a much lower rate, taking jobs
away from union members. But in 1994, several far-left union leaders led by DSA
member John Sweeney took over the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO), setting the stage for a major
policy change for the unions—and ultimately for the Democrats.
Claiming U.S. immigration policy was “broken
and [needed] to be fixed,” the AFL-CIO on Feb. 16, 2000, called for
a new amnesty for millions of undocumented workers and the repeal of the 1986
legislation that criminalized hiring them.
According to the DSA website in
2004, Medina was “widely credited with playing a key role in the AFL-CIO’s
decision to adopt a new policy on immigration a few years ago.”
From his union position, Medina reached across
the labor movement into the social movements and the Catholic Church to create
the widest possible pro-amnesty coalition.
“Working to
ensure the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform does not slip
away, Medina led the effort to unite the unions of the Change to Win federation
and AFL-CIO around a comprehensive framework for reform. Serving as a leading
voice in Washington, frequently testifying before Congress, Medina has also
helped to build a strong, diverse coalition of community and national partners
that have intensified the call for reform and cultivated necessary political
capital to hold elected leaders accountable.
“Medina has
also helped strengthen ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the labor
movement to work on common concerns such as immigrant worker rights and access
to health care.”
In August 2008, the Obama campaign announced
the formation of its National Latino Advisory Council. The new body consisted of several Democratic
Congress members, a Catholic bishop, a former ambassador, two former cabinet
members, and Medina.
After the election, Medina became
Obama’s informal adviser on issues concerning immigration and amnesty. The fact that
a DSA member and CPUSA supporter was advising the U.S. president on issues of
vital national security importance appeared to concern no one.
Eventually, Medina and his movement were able
to get an amnesty bill passed through the U.S. Senate. If they could only pass
a bill through the House, the United States would be set on an irreversible
path to socialism.
Fortunately, Tea Party-aligned Republican
Congress members refused to sell out their nation. They held the line against
intense pressure, and no amnesty bill was passed through the House in Obama’s
eight years in the White House.
‘Fast
for Families’
In November 2013, Medina, along with Cristian
Avila of amnesty advocacy group Mi Familia Vota and Dae Jung Yoon of the
National Korean American Service and Education Consortium (a hard-left group
that supports communist North Korea), started a 22-day “fast for families” in
front of Capitol Hill “to demand Congress approve comprehensive immigration
reform,” according to People’s World.
The staged protest gained worldwide media
attention. Several Democratic members of Congress dropped by to
offer support, along with then-President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, and
Vice President Joe Biden.
Still, House Republicans did not budge.
On May 17, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s
presidential campaign announced that long-time DSA
activist Dolores Huerta and Medina would join the team as senior advisers in
California.
“Huerta and
Medina will build on the campaign’s robust outreach to the Latino community in
California and work with the campaign’s senior team to organize and engage
Californians in conversations about Hillary Clinton’s plans to break down
barriers and help move the country forward.
“’We are
thrilled to be joined by two incredibly accomplished and admired leaders in the
Latino, immigrant and labor communities, Dolores Huerta and Eliseo Medina,’
said Buffy Wicks, State Director for Hillary for California. ‘Their advocacy
and leadership … will go a long way in continuing the important work of
reaching every California voter in advance of the June 7 primary.’”
Clinton promised to introduce a “pathway
to full and equal citizenship” to legalize and grant voting rights to every
illegal alien in the country “within 100 days of taking office” if she were to
be elected president.
Had President Donald Trump not won his
shocking victory on Nov. 6, 2016, Medina’s dream of a permanent, unbeatable
progressive “governing coalition” would today be a reality, making it virtually
impossible to elect another Republican president.
Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker, and
public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched
radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on
mainstream politics.
Views expressed in this article are the
opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch
Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment