MASSIVE LAYOFFS, PARTICULARLY IN HIGH TECH EVEN AS DEM HIGH TECH BILLIONAIRES DEMAND AMNESTY AND NO CAPS ON IMPORTING 'CHEAP' LABOR.
Employment Bubble Bursting | Massive Layoffs Tech & Fossil Fuel
A bad year for IT companies
It has just been reported by Human Events that in 2022, big tech lost $7.4 trillion. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that many are leaving the platforms due to their tyrannical policies, or -- in Twitter's case -- are rebuilding. Many of these companies reported groundbreaking numbers of layoffs. In Twitter’s case, Elon Musk rightfully fired half of the staff that Jack Dorsey had.
Human Events also reports that not one of the fifteen tech companies in the United States made a profit in 2022. This is a great thing. Consequently, due to the loss of money by these companies, many of the CEOs apologized for one mistake or another. However, they never come out and apologized for censoring conservative opinions.
Concerning Meta, Facebook’s parent company, Human Events reports, “after spending billions of dollars on the largely failing metaverse project, and forcing revenue to nosedive, CEO Mark Zuckerberg was forced to layoff around 11,000 employees and admit “I got this wrong.” Moreover, Amazon lost more than $1 trillion in market value, becoming the first company to reach such a number. Accordingly, Microsoft lost more than $889 billion, laying off 8,000 employees. Apple, whose products are made in China, did not suffer the same losses. But the company had to cut hundreds of jobs all the same. Lucky Twitter cut only around 3,500 jobs. Of course, the dichotomy with Twitter is that is has become a free-speech platform under the ownership of Elon Musk. Thanks to Musk, Twitter has seen a larger audience and more engagement now, than ever before. These tyrannical big tech companies should look at Twitter for success. Social Media companies should not become a front for the Democrat Party.
Approximately 210,000 employees were laid off by the fifteen tech companies. All fifteen have engaged in the surreptitious censorship of conservatives. In fact, in 2021, all these companies banned the sitting president of the United States, President Donald Trump. If they can do this to Trump, imagine what they can do to you. These parochial companies have demonstrated their will to “follow the money,” and this year all that money went down the toilet. These companies sunk, and that is a fantastic thing on behalf of the American people. The next Congress should repeal Section 230, which offers legal protection regarding what appears on their platforms. Will the repeal occur? Probably not, since our politicians have a copious number of lobbyists associated with Silicon Valley. However, great steps should be taken immediately to strip big tech of their protections.
Any time that these left-leaning platforms lose money, it is a good thing. They censored a sitting president, deplatformed conservative thought, lied about January 6th, and lied about COVID-19. The Twitter Files have shed light on all the darkness that these companies kept hidden away from the world. In many ways, the loss of money these companies experienced this year represents justice for all the catastrophes they unleashed. Always remember that a bad day for Silicon Valley is a good day for America.
Image: Blogtrepreneur
Why Most Californians Aren't Happy with the State | Victor Davis Hanson
Migrant enclaves already are at the top of the U.S. lists for bad places to - 10 of the 50 worst places in America to live according to this list are in California, and all of them are famous for their illegal populations. MONICA SHOWALTER
THERE'S A REASON WHY THE NAFTA GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS FOUND AND WENT TO BED WITH HIGH TECH BILLIONAIRES!
Why Big-Tech is Anti-Democracy | Victor Davis Hanson
THERE'S NO GREATER THREAT TO AMERICA THAN JOE FUKING BIDEN AND HIS PARASITE SON AND BROTHER. REMINDERS OF THE DANGERS OF LETTING SOCIOPATH LAWYERS GET BEHIND THE WHEEL!
GAMER LAWYERS JOE BIDEN AND HIS CUBAN GAMER LAWYER MAYORKAS
'THEY TAKE IT AWAY' Blackburns goes UNLEASHES on Mayorkas with B0MBSHELL 'title removal' DIRT
The home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, once a beacon of opportunity and prosperity, is today a sinking ship. Immigration policy is a significant factor in that decline.
Sanctuary California should be a cautionary tale, not a goal
By Dale Wilcox
From the moment Joe Biden assumed the presidency, immigration has been at the top of his agenda. One of his first acts was to sign a series of executive orders that reversed the Trump administration's policies on things like border wall funding, travel bans, and sanctuary laws.
While Trump's goal for immigration policy was clearly articulated in his "Make America Great Again" concept, we have heard little on where Biden intends to take us with his immigration plank. Judging from his actions so far, though, the destination is clear. He wants to make America into California, and that should deeply concern every U.S. citizen.
What anti-borders politicians have done to California over the last 30 years is a disgrace. The home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, once a beacon of opportunity and prosperity, is today a sinking ship. Immigration policy is a significant factor in that decline.
Taking on a massive population of illegal aliens has come at a colossal cost to Californians, in terms of finances, safety, and job opportunities, to name a few. State residents foot the bill for more than $23 billion that is directly attributable to illegal immigration and its effects. That breaks down to almost $2,000 for every legally present household each year. This from a state that is already carrying more than $1.3 trillion in total state, county, and municipal debt. Who wouldn't want to pay a hefty tax each year to encourage more illegal aliens to move to your community?
The chief catalyst for California's illegal alien crisis has been its embrace of sanctuary laws. By preventing local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in the deportation of criminal aliens, there are virtually no consequences for violating our nation's immigration laws inside the state of California.
While the Orwellian-named California Values Act (S.B. 54) made sanctuary policy state law, it seems downright moderate compared to what some cities and counties have done. S.B. 54 at least allows cooperation with ICE in only the most extreme of circumstances.
The sanctuary law in Santa Clara, the largest county in northern California, takes an even more radical position, stating that the county "does not, under any circumstances, honor civil detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by holding inmates on ICE's behalf for additional time after they would otherwise be released from County custody."
Before sanctuary laws, it had long been a practice of local law enforcement to cooperate with detainer requests as a way to expedite criminal aliens toward deportation.
The results of this policy have been about as bad as you might expect. In Santa Clara County last November, police arrested Fernando De Jesus Lopez-Garcia after he allegedly stabbed five people inside the Grace Baptist Church, killing two and leaving three others seriously injured.
One witness called 911 to say a "man was going crazy, stabbing people and there was blood everywhere." He was arrested on two counts of murder, three counts of attempted murder, battery on a spouse, and violation of a protective order.
Lopez-Garcia is an illegal alien with an extensive criminal record who had successfully avoided ICE apprehension after each arrest because of local and state sanctuary laws barring cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
In 2019, police arrested Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza, an illegal alien from El Salvador, for allegedly beating and stabbing Bambi Larson to death in her San Jose home. Reports later disclosed that police had previously arrested Carranza ten times for drugs, kidnapping, battery against a police officer, and burglary. ICE had requested an immigration hold on Carranza seven times, but the Santa Clara Sheriff's Office (SCSO) refused every request. Facing criticism for the sanctuary policy, the county supervisors met and inexplicably voted 5-0 to double down on the policy.
My organization, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), recently concluded an investigation into these practices in Santa Clara and found some disturbing results.
We submitted a records request with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office to discover just how many ICE detainers it has received in recent time and how many of them applied to aliens with serious criminal backgrounds. That request revealed that ICE lodged a total of 1,757 detainers in just two years — 909 requests in 2019 and 848 in 2020. The law enforcement records technician with the sheriff's office confirmed with IRLI that every single one of these requests was ignored.
The Sheriff's Office refused to disclose to IRLI how many of the detainer requests applied to aliens who were convicted or charged with serious or violent felony offenses. When IRLI asked about the last year an ICE detainer request was honored by the county, a records technician there replied that he could not find records that showed the last time a detainer request was honored.
The results of these laws are clear. The county has become a haven for illegal aliens, particularly those with criminal records. The communities are demonstrably less safe, and the influx of new arrivals creates a heavy financial burden on legal state residents. Is it any wonder that taxpayers are fleeing the state in droves?
As the Biden administration goes full speed with its anti-borders agenda, however, there will be no place for concerned Americans to flee. California-style laws will soon become federal laws. We're about to conduct a national experiment in anti-borders cause and effect. Buckle up.
Dale L. Wilcox is executive director and general counsel at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration.
Lofgren: Hard to Work with House Republicans Who Engaged in ‘Disgraceful and Un-American Activity’ on January 6
Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Friday on CNN’s “The Lead” that it is “hard” to work with Republican House members who voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election after the January 6 Capitol riot.
Anchor Jake Tapper asked, “In the next Congress, you will, in all likelihood, need to work with in order to achieve anything because you will be in the minority, work with people who either denied the election, voted against counting votes, voted against electoral votes, signed on to that crazy lawsuit from the Texas attorney general full of lies, or even individuals who defied their subpoenas, who refused to comply with congressional subpoenas. How are you going to do that?”
Lofgren said, “I’ll be honest, Jake, it’s hard. You know, I hear some of these guys talking about, you know, the rule of law and I think to myself you voted to overturn the Constitution, how can you even be saying this? But, you know, I’m elected to go back and get something done for my constituents and for the country, and I intend to try to do that, even though many of these Republican members really have engaged in disgraceful and un-American activity.”
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN
This outsourcing campaign has been ignored by establishment outlets, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon.
The U.S. tech sector has hired so many visa workers that a growing share of its middle-ranked and senior leadership consists are picked from a sprawling network of current and former visa workers. For example, Microsoft‘s CEO and chairman is Indian-born Satya Nadella, and Twitter’s recently departed CEO is Parag Agrawal who was apparently picked by the company’s board while he was still an H-1B visa worker. In turn, the CEO report to the company boards, which are dominated by representatives of major investors.
EAGLE Act: Tech Investors vs. Everybody Else
The high-stakes fight over the stalled EAGLE Act outsourcing bill now has a simple battle line: The West Coast tech investors and pro-migration progressives versus everyone else.
The battle lines became visible on Thursday when top technology investors — fronted by Amazon and Microsoft — emerged from the fog to announce their support for the outsourcing bill. This force only appeared after their allies on the Hill — chiefly Silicon Valley Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) — failed to stop a loose alliance of opponents from lining up against the bill.
The opponents include most rank-and-file Republicans, some Democrats, the immigration lawyers’ association, hospital chains, a leading member of the black caucus, and a medley of groups representing would-be immigrants who fear they will be pushed aside by a flood of Fortune 500 indentured workers.
“Progressive and conservative groups are trying to stop the EAGLE Act … I think it’s really an unprecedented situation,” tweeted David Bier, a pro-migration activist for the Cato Institute.
So far, the tech guys are losing to everybody else — the bill has been delayed at least one week, leaving the advocates even less time to rush the bill through the Senate.
The EAGLE Act would turbocharge companies’ incentive to import college graduates — most from India and China — into a wide variety of Fortune 500 careers that are needed by young American graduates — including millions of swing-voting graduates who helped the Democrats abort a GOP blowout in November. Section 7 of the bill “is an end-run around the annual green card limit,” Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) told the Committee on Rules on December 5.
The visa-worker inflow has been growing since 1990, and it has helped to keep tech worker waves flat since 2009. The inflow has also allowed C-suite executives to suppress the workplace clout of professionals, maximize share prices at the cost of other priorities, and suppress the spinoff of rival companies by ambitious U.S. graduates.
The investor-owned Fortune 500 companies, and their pyramids of subcontractors, now employ roughly 1.5 million foreign contract workers in a wide variety of jobs needed by many underemployed and indebted U.S. technology graduates and their families.
The EAGLE Act would accelerate the inflow by allowing Fortune 500 companies to trade many more valuable green cards to Indian graduates in exchange for several years of lower wage, uncomplaining work.
But the bill also hides an even bigger corporate giveaway in Section 7: It would let U.S.-based employers trade the huge prize of lifetime U.S. work permits to an unlimited number of foreign workers in exchange for several years of cut-rate blue-collar or white-collar service.
On December 7, Pearl Harbor Day, Amazon suddenly appeared with a tweet:
We are proud to support the EAGLE Act and are continuing advocate for common sense immigration reform on behalf of our employees and their families. We urge Congress to pass the #EAGLEAct, lifting unfair per-country visa caps for employment-based green cards
Microsoft joined in:
Microsoft has long supported the #EagleAct and its core provisions of eliminating EB per country limits and improving fairness in the green card process. It’s critical for Congress to consider these issues and bring much needed relief to those facing these extraordinary backlogs.
The U.S. tech sector has hired so many visa workers that a growing share of its middle-ranked and senior leadership consists are picked from a sprawling network of current and former visa workers. For example, Microsoft‘s CEO and chairman is Indian-born Satya Nadella, and Twitter’s recently departed CEO is Parag Agrawal who was apparently picked by the company’s board while he was still an H-1B visa worker. In turn, the CEO report to the company boards, which are dominated by representatives of major investors.
The EAGLE Act would greatly benefit the two companies because they are the greatest users of the H-1B visa program. The program keeps more than 500,000 foreign graduates in U.S. jobs by dangling the prize of U.S. citizenship in exchange for several years or more of dutiful servitude:
The MyVisaJobs site shows that Amazon asked for 21,000 three-year H-1B visas in 2022 plus 5,810 green cards as a bonus for those H-1Bs are already in the United States.
In 2019, the company also hired almost 3,000 recent foreign graduates of U.S. colleges via the fast-expanding Optional Practical Training (OPT) program.
The MyVisaJobs site showed that Microsoft wanted roughly 11,000 three-year H-1B visas in 2022, plus 3,000 green cards as a reward for its current visa workers:
The DHS site showed Microsoft employed 900 foreign graduates with OPT work permits in 2019.
The federal government provides very little information about corporate hiring via the other L–1, J-1, and H4ED foreign-worker programs. Those programs include roughly 600,000 foreign workers in jobs that could be performed by many of the underemployed American technology graduates.
In 2022, the U.S. government quintupled the award of green cards to Indian graduates.
The tech companies’ public intervention is unusual because the investors prefer to do much of their public advocacy behind a screen of lobby groups, astroturf fronts, and plaintive pleas from camera-ready advocates.
For example, the very visible Immigration Voice group presents Indian visa workers as the primary beneficiaries of the giveaway act. But the group’s “advisory board” consists of a long-standing lobbyist for the tech industry and Neil Patel, the owner of the DailyCaller.com and a former staffer for Vice President Dick Cheney,
Similarly, the Eagle Act has been repeatedly pushed by FWD.us, which is an investor-created advocacy group for more migration. “Per-country caps on green cards create decades-long backlogs, making the immigration system less efficient & less fair,” FWD.us declared in September. ‘The bipartisan EAGLE Act would help fix that by reforming the caps, said the FWD.us report, which did not describe the new work-for-work-permits incentive and pipeline.
The breadth of investors who founded and funded FWD.us was hidden from casual visitors to the group’s website sometime in the last few months. But copies exist at the other sites. The 2013 founders included Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, John Doerr at Kleiner Perkins, Matt Cohler at Benchmark, and Reid Hoffman, a partner at the Greylock Partners investment firm who also sits on Microsoft’s board.
This outsourcing campaign has been ignored by establishment outlets, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon.
The investors are being backed by their Silicon Valley ally, Lofgren. They are also backed by leaders in the Democrats’ pro-migration identity-group causes, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), the Indian-born leader of the progressive caucus. These groups play up the gains for Indian workers — but they dodge the concerns about the act’s Section 7 incentives for the Fortune 500 to hire foreign workers instead of Americans.
So far, the GOP leadership has opposed the EAGLE Act by saying it helps China’s communist government get more access to U.S. business. But Democrats have added language to take that objection away from the GOP leaders, who are fully aware that one in six of their voters in November said immigration controls are their top priority.
Apple’s CEO Tim Cook is also backing the bill — and recently met with GOP leaders.
GOP opposition to the EAGLE Act is complicated by Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) who managed the House Republicans’ 2022 election campaign. He eked out a narrow win in the 2022 election after he accepted huge donations from investor groups. Notably, the GOP campaign minimized criticism of the pocketbook damage caused to Americans by President Joe Biden’s cheap-labor migration policies.
Emmer was elected GOP whip in the next Congress.
Overall, investors and their companies employ roughly 1.5 million foreign contract workers in jobs that were denied to American graduates.
A 2021 study by the Census Bureau reported massive underemployment among U.S. graduates amid the replacement-level inflow of visa workers:
The vast majority (62%) of [American] college-educated workers who majored in a STEM [science, technology, engineering and math] field were employed in non-STEM fields such as non-STEM management, law, education, social work, accounting or counseling. In addition, 10% of STEM college graduates worked in STEM-related occupations such as health care.
The path to STEM jobs for non-STEM majors was narrow. Only a few STEM-related majors (7%) and non-STEM majors (6%) ultimately ended up in STEM occupations.
The pre-inflation salaries in the tech sector rose from $78,845 in 2009 to $93,244 in 2018 and $104,566 in 2021. But that shows a slight decline of 0.3 percent according to the inflation calculator offered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As tech salaries stalled, tech investors gained trillions of dollars in extra value from escalating profits and stock prices.
The flat salaries for tech workers also allow many employers to cut salaries for many other non-tech graduates. “Most college graduates have actually seen their real incomes stagnate or even decline” since 2000, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote in April.
The replacement of free-speaking American professionals with indentured foreign labor also allows executives to discard important civic priorities. These priorities — such as security, privacy, and durability of high-tech infrastructure — are sacrificed to lower costs and raise stock prices. The resulting damage was exposed by losses at Intel, and Boeing, and by the bankruptcy and jailings at Theranos.
The inflow of foreign workers also encourages coastal investors to minimize investments in inland states, so redirecting jobs, payrolls, housing wealth, and political power to the coastal states.
Many polls show the public strongly opposes corporate labor migration into the jobs that Americans need for middle-class lives, homes, and families.
Report: Washington Post Lost Half a Million Subscribers Since Biden Took Office
Trump was right. He was 'the best thing to ever happen' to the Bezos-owned paper.
Former president Donald Trump often said he was "the best thing to ever happen" to the Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets.
He was right.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Jeff Bezos-owned publication has lost 500,000 subscribers since Trump left office in January 2021, which amounts to a decline of roughly 20 percent. The Post is on track to lose money in 2022 after years of profitability. The New York Times reported in August that the Post‘s business has "stalled" since President Joe Biden was sworn in, and layoffs are being discussed amid management's frustration with "numerous low performers in the newsroom."
Trump called it as early as December 2017, when he predicted that "newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if I'm not there because without me, their ratings are going down the tubes." The Post is hardly the only media outlet suffering in the post-Trump era. BuzzFeed, Gannett, and CNN announced significant layoffs this month in an effort to cut costs.
The bottom line: Media outlets (and the anti-Trump grifters at the Lincoln Project) stand to financially benefit if Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. Assess their coverage of the GOP primary with this in mind.
D.C. Attorney General Sues Amazon for Stiffing Delivery Drivers on Customer Tips
Washington DC Attorney General Karl Racine filed a lawsuit against Amazon on Wednesday, accusing the tech giant of deceiving its customer base and “stealing” tips from delivery drivers.
In a press release on Wednesday, AG Karl Racine announced his new lawsuit against Amazon, and accused the company of “stealing tips from delivery drivers through a deceptive, illegal scheme that tricked consumers into thinking they were increasing drivers’ compensation when Amazon was actually diverting tips to reduce its own labor costs and increase profits.”
Amazon delivery driver ( PATRICK T. FALLON /Getty)
Workers pack and ship customer orders at the 750,000-square-foot Amazon fulfillment center on August 1, 2017 in Romeoville, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
“Workers in the District of Columbia and throughout our country are too often taken advantage of and not paid their hard-earned wages,” Racine said. “What’s more, consumers need to know where their tips are going. This suit is about providing workers the tips they are owed and telling consumers the truth.”
“Amazon, one of the world’s wealthiest companies, certainly does not need to take tips that belong to workers. Amazon can and should do better,” Racine added.
In 2015, the e-commerce giant launched its Amazon Flex service, which offers faster deliveries. The tech giant currently fills thousands of orders on a weekly basis for tens of thousands of customers in Washington DC.
When customers are checking out, they are encouraged to tip their delivery drivers. The company offers a default tip amount and assures consumers that 100 percent of the tip amount would go to the drivers.
But in 2016, Amazon changed its payment model so that a large portion of the tips did not go to the drivers, but instead went toward paying a portion of what the company had already promised to pay the driver, Racine said in his press release.
Meanwhile, the company continued to tell its customers that 100 percent of the tips went to the delivery drivers, despite the fact that the e-commerce giant was “secretly using these tips to subsidize its own labor costs and increase profits,” Racine added.
“As a result of its deceptive tactics, Amazon experienced significant cost savings. In the years Amazon had this policy in place, consumers in D.C. paid millions of dollars in tips to reward their delivery drivers for providing a valuable service.
Meanwhile, Amazon used much of those tips to save on its own operating costs, thereby deceiving both District consumers and Amazon Flex drivers.”
Last year, Amazon was ordered to pay $61.7 million to settle allegations by the FTC that the company failed to pay Flex delivery drivers the full amount of tips given to them by customers.
“Rather than passing along 100% of customers’ tips to drivers, as it had promised to do, Amazon used the money itself. Our action today returns to drivers the tens of millions of dollars in tips that Amazon misappropriated, and requires Amazon to get drivers’ permission before changing its treatment of tips in the future,” an FTC official said at the time.
Silicon Valley companies offering delivery services have used a similar scheme to stiff delivery drivers in the past.
You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Facebook and Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.
Sanctuary California should be a cautionary tale, not a goal
By Dale Wilcox
From the moment Joe Biden assumed the presidency, immigration has been at the top of his agenda. One of his first acts was to sign a series of executive orders that reversed the Trump administration's policies on things like border wall funding, travel bans, and sanctuary laws.
While Trump's goal for immigration policy was clearly articulated in his "Make America Great Again" concept, we have heard little on where Biden intends to take us with his immigration plank. Judging from his actions so far, though, the destination is clear. He wants to make America into California, and that should deeply concern every U.S. citizen.
What anti-borders politicians have done to California over the last 30 years is a disgrace. The home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, once a beacon of opportunity and prosperity, is today a sinking ship. Immigration policy is a significant factor in that decline.
Taking on a massive population of illegal aliens has come at a colossal cost to Californians, in terms of finances, safety, and job opportunities, to name a few. State residents foot the bill for more than $23 billion that is directly attributable to illegal immigration and its effects. That breaks down to almost $2,000 for every legally present household each year. This from a state that is already carrying more than $1.3 trillion in total state, county, and municipal debt. Who wouldn't want to pay a hefty tax each year to encourage more illegal aliens to move to your community?
The chief catalyst for California's illegal alien crisis has been its embrace of sanctuary laws. By preventing local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in the deportation of criminal aliens, there are virtually no consequences for violating our nation's immigration laws inside the state of California.
While the Orwellian-named California Values Act (S.B. 54) made sanctuary policy state law, it seems downright moderate compared to what some cities and counties have done. S.B. 54 at least allows cooperation with ICE in only the most extreme of circumstances.
The sanctuary law in Santa Clara, the largest county in northern California, takes an even more radical position, stating that the county "does not, under any circumstances, honor civil detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by holding inmates on ICE's behalf for additional time after they would otherwise be released from County custody."
Before sanctuary laws, it had long been a practice of local law enforcement to cooperate with detainer requests as a way to expedite criminal aliens toward deportation.
The results of this policy have been about as bad as you might expect. In Santa Clara County last November, police arrested Fernando De Jesus Lopez-Garcia after he allegedly stabbed five people inside the Grace Baptist Church, killing two and leaving three others seriously injured.
One witness called 911 to say a "man was going crazy, stabbing people and there was blood everywhere." He was arrested on two counts of murder, three counts of attempted murder, battery on a spouse, and violation of a protective order.
Lopez-Garcia is an illegal alien with an extensive criminal record who had successfully avoided ICE apprehension after each arrest because of local and state sanctuary laws barring cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
In 2019, police arrested Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza, an illegal alien from El Salvador, for allegedly beating and stabbing Bambi Larson to death in her San Jose home. Reports later disclosed that police had previously arrested Carranza ten times for drugs, kidnapping, battery against a police officer, and burglary. ICE had requested an immigration hold on Carranza seven times, but the Santa Clara Sheriff's Office (SCSO) refused every request. Facing criticism for the sanctuary policy, the county supervisors met and inexplicably voted 5-0 to double down on the policy.
My organization, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), recently concluded an investigation into these practices in Santa Clara and found some disturbing results.
We submitted a records request with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office to discover just how many ICE detainers it has received in recent time and how many of them applied to aliens with serious criminal backgrounds. That request revealed that ICE lodged a total of 1,757 detainers in just two years — 909 requests in 2019 and 848 in 2020. The law enforcement records technician with the sheriff's office confirmed with IRLI that every single one of these requests was ignored.
The Sheriff's Office refused to disclose to IRLI how many of the detainer requests applied to aliens who were convicted or charged with serious or violent felony offenses. When IRLI asked about the last year an ICE detainer request was honored by the county, a records technician there replied that he could not find records that showed the last time a detainer request was honored.
The results of these laws are clear. The county has become a haven for illegal aliens, particularly those with criminal records. The communities are demonstrably less safe, and the influx of new arrivals creates a heavy financial burden on legal state residents. Is it any wonder that taxpayers are fleeing the state in droves?
As the Biden administration goes full speed with its anti-borders agenda, however, there will be no place for concerned Americans to flee. California-style laws will soon become federal laws. We're about to conduct a national experiment in anti-borders cause and effect. Buckle up.
Dale L. Wilcox is executive director and general counsel at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration.
No comments:
Post a Comment