Blackburn is pushing a second border amendment that would require DNA tests to determine the relationship between illegal immigrants and any children arriving with them at the border. The Biden administration also reversed the policy earlier in the year, with critics warning this would make it easier for human traffickers to move migrant children into America. The amendment is a revamped version of a June law that Blackburn spearheaded with the support of 10 other Republican senators.
The measure is meant to address growing concerns in Congress that migrant children released into the country are being illegally put to work, often in the sex trade. A record number of 152,000 unaccompanied minors were seen by Customs and Border Protection in 2022, with another 324,000 in the last 26 months, the Free Beacon reported in May.
Amid Border Crisis, Republicans Push to Reinstate 'Remain In Mexico'
"Remain in Mexico" could once again be the law of the land if Senate Republicans have their way.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) is spearheading an effort to formally reinstate the federal government’s Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy, which required illegal immigrants seeking asylum at the southern border to stay in Mexico while awaiting immigration proceedings.
The Biden administration reversed this order in 2022, leading scores of migrants to surge across the border and eventually be released into the country, where federal authorities have no way of tracking them. Blackburn on Monday moved to revive the Trump-era policy via an amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Washington Free Beacon has learned.
The proposal is certain to draw support from Senate Republicans, who have rallied against the Biden administration’s lax border policies, blaming them for a historic surge in illegal immigration. But with Democrats in control of the Senate, a reinstatement of the "Remain in Mexico" policy could complicate efforts to pass the NDAA, the mandatory yearly spending bill that funds national security priorities. The House passed its own version of the NDAA on Monday over the objection of the Biden administration, which opposes a host of provisions that crack down on China and defund woke cultural initiatives.
Blackburn’s measure, a version of a bill she introduced in May, would effectively stop federal border authorities from permitting most migrants from entering America. Instead, they will be sent back to Mexico and assigned a court hearing date. Proponents say this policy is critical to ensuring illegal immigrants are not freely released into the country, where it is difficult for border authorities to track their whereabouts.
"An open border is one of our greatest national security threats, as migrant children are trafficked and suspected criminals and terrorists enter undetected," Blackburn told the Free Beacon. "We must take action now to curb child trafficking and stop the flow of illegal immigration into the United States."
In May, the Biden administration directed Customs and Border Protection to release migrants into America "without court dates or the ability to track them," according to NBC News. With migrants arriving at the border "at levels not seen in more than two decades," the Biden administration’s decision to release them into the country has emerged as a top concern among border hawks.
Blackburn is pushing a second border amendment that would require DNA tests to determine the relationship between illegal immigrants and any children arriving with them at the border. The Biden administration also reversed the policy earlier in the year, with critics warning this would make it easier for human traffickers to move migrant children into America. The amendment is a revamped version of a June law that Blackburn spearheaded with the support of 10 other Republican senators.
The measure is meant to address growing concerns in Congress that migrant children released into the country are being illegally put to work, often in the sex trade. A record number of 152,000 unaccompanied minors were seen by Customs and Border Protection in 2022, with another 324,000 in the last 26 months, the Free Beacon reported in May.
Published under: Border Crisis , Customs and Border Patrol , Illegal Immigration , Marsha Blackburn , Remain in Mexico
Who Really Benefits From Illegal Immigration? | Victor Davis Hanson.... OTHER THAN NAFTA JOE???
More than five million illegal aliens have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border since Joe Biden took office, according to a study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. With some exceptions, these migrants tend to be low-skilled, poor, and come from countries where violence is normal and women and certain minorities are degraded. By importing millions of foreign nationals who come from countries with cultures and values that are diametrically opposed to ours, American leaders are setting the stage for exactly the kind of strife and turmoil that is occurring in France.
Tucker Carlson Tonight Interview DeSantis
OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED
New study says high housing costs, low income push Californians into homelessness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4guGq6kWxg
CA makes up third of homeless population in U.S., according to study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OCZZF3_Yas
Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant
Welfare
More than 7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.
The latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of households headed by native-born Americans use welfare in California.
All four states with the largest foreign-born populations, including California, have extremely high use of welfare by immigrant households. In Texas, for example, nearly 70 percent of households headed by immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare. Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of native-born households in Texas are on welfare.
In New York and Florida, a majority of households headed by immigrants and noncitizens are on welfare. Overall, about 63 percent of immigrant households use welfare while only 35 percent of native-born households use welfare.
President Trump’s administration is looking to soon implement a policy that protects American taxpayers’ dollars from funding the mass importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals by enforcing a “public charge” rule whereby legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using Obamacare, food stamps, and public housing.
The immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
California approves ‘shocking’ policy giving weekly checks to migrants: Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGCsB3LL1Nw
The War On Poverty Hasn’t Just Failed, It’s Failed Abysmally
Recently the Supreme Court put an end to Joe Biden’s efforts to give erstwhile college students almost a trillion dollars in “debt relief,” although the Biden administration is trying again. That’s a lot of money… But that’s actually a tiny fraction of the money the government has wasted on redistribution, aka social programs, over the last six decades.
Next year, the United States will commemorate the 60th anniversary of the War on Poverty, which President Lyndon B. Johnson initiated in 1964. The War’s programs initially started on a modest scale but have expanded almost parabolically since. By the War’s 50th anniversary, the government had spent more than $22 trillion on various welfare and redistribution programs.
A decade later, it spends $1 trillion a year on said programs, not including various “targeted” expenditures under Social Security or Medicare, which make the true total simply unknowable. To put that in perspective, $1 trillion is greater than the GDP of 194 of the world’s 213 countries.
Is this massive expenditure justified by the results of the War on Poverty? Initially, one might suggest the results say yes. As of 2021, poverty in the United States hovered at approximately 11.6%, down from the approximately 18% rate in 1964 when the War on Poverty began. That’s a reduction of 6.6% or almost one-third.
Image by Vince Coyner.
A closer look, however, reveals that this 6.6% reduction after an expenditure of $30 trillion seems underwhelming, to say the least. To see the full picture of the failed War on Poverty one need only look at the poverty rate over the 15 years before this War began.
In 1949, the poverty rate in the United States stood at 34%, which was fully one-third of the nation’s population. Over the next 15 years, without significant government redistribution programs—indeed, without a War on Poverty—the poverty rate fell almost by half, dropping from 34% to 18%, a reduction of a full 16 percentage points.
So, without government spending significant money, poverty fell by 16% in a period of 15 years, or 1.08% per year. But with the government spending more than $30 trillion over the next 55 years, poverty fell by a total of just 6.4% or .12% per year! That means that, without government intervention, the poverty rate was falling 10 times faster than it did once government programs kicked in.
And that 11.6% itself deserves a closer look. In 2014, when the War on Poverty turned 50, the American poverty rate was still at 15%. That means that, after spending $20 trillion over the previous half-century, the government had successfully reduced poverty by a mere 3%.
When Barack Obama entered the White House in 2008, the poverty rate stood at 12.5%. It jumped up to 15% for four years before dropping back to 12.5% by the end of his presidency, which is where it stood when Donald Trump took the White House.
A mere three years later, Trump’s economic renaissance had reduced poverty by 2%, bringing it to its lowest level in history—10.5%, before the Covid scam derailed the prosperity engine. To put that in perspective, Donald Trump’s economy brought poverty down by 2% in 3 years, fully half as much as the government spending did in 50 years after spending $30 trillion!
And of course, the income numbers only tell part of the story. Sadly, there is much more to it. An unintended consequence of the War on Poverty appears to have been a skyrocketing of single-parent households, which is a significant driver of poverty.
In 1964, around 4% of American children were born to unwed mothers. By 2021, this percentage increased a full ten times to 40%. Under the heading of Unintended Consequences, one could observe that the welfare programs intended to save children from poverty have, by making it economically and socially viable for single-parent households to exist, effectively stranded many children in poverty and, worse, inflicted on them the coincident pathologies of poor education and crime, both of which, not coincidentally are also consequences of government failure.
From another perspective, let’s draw a comparison between the effects of government spending and the impact of private-sector investments. Let’s take just three companies, Apple, Amazon, and UPS, which together had about $1 trillion in revenue in 2022, approximately the same amount the government spent on welfare that same year. These companies—and many others like them—revolutionized industries; drove many trillions of dollars of business for customers and vendors and affiliates; directly and indirectly employ millions of Americans who are breadwinners for their families, and at the same time generated trillions of dollars of wealth for investors.
One can only wonder what might have happened if the more than $30 trillion the government wasted on its failed War on Poverty had, instead, been invested in startups similar to Apple and Amazon. Not that we want the government taking our money and investing it—WE DON’T—but imagine the impact that money might have had if it somehow had been targeted towards entrepreneurship and economic development.
The 2% reduction in poverty during Trump’s first three years demonstrated with crystal clarity that market-driven prosperity is a far more efficient vehicle for reducing poverty than government spending of any form. At a minimum, a market-driven solution would likely have fostered a far more empowered, economically vibrant, and dramatically more prosperous population than the generational dependency created by the government with its alphabet of aid programs.
Benjamin Franklin understood this more clearly than virtually any politician in America today, having commented:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Whether it’s student debt or the federal and state welfare perpetuation machines, America would be better off looking to the Founding Fathers for guidance than the grifters at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue…
You can follow Vince on Twitter at ImperfectUSABy Vince Coyner
Recently the Supreme Court put an end to Joe Biden’s efforts to give erstwhile college students almost a trillion dollars in “debt relief,” although the Biden administration is trying again. That’s a lot of money… But that’s actually a tiny fraction of the money the government has wasted on redistribution, aka social programs, over the last six decades.
Next year, the United States will commemorate the 60th anniversary of the War on Poverty, which President Lyndon B. Johnson initiated in 1964. The War’s programs initially started on a modest scale but have expanded almost parabolically since. By the War’s 50th anniversary, the government had spent more than $22 trillion on various welfare and redistribution programs.
A decade later, it spends $1 trillion a year on said programs, not including various “targeted” expenditures under Social Security or Medicare, which make the true total simply unknowable. To put that in perspective, $1 trillion is greater than the GDP of 194 of the world’s 213 countries.
Is this massive expenditure justified by the results of the War on Poverty? Initially, one might suggest the results say yes. As of 2021, poverty in the United States hovered at approximately 11.6%, down from the approximately 18% rate in 1964 when the War on Poverty began. That’s a reduction of 6.6% or almost one-third.
Image by Vince Coyner.
A closer look, however, reveals that this 6.6% reduction after an expenditure of $30 trillion seems underwhelming, to say the least. To see the full picture of the failed War on Poverty one need only look at the poverty rate over the 15 years before this War began.
In 1949, the poverty rate in the United States stood at 34%, which was fully one-third of the nation’s population. Over the next 15 years, without significant government redistribution programs—indeed, without a War on Poverty—the poverty rate fell almost by half, dropping from 34% to 18%, a reduction of a full 16 percentage points.
So, without government spending significant money, poverty fell by 16% in a period of 15 years, or 1.08% per year. But with the government spending more than $30 trillion over the next 55 years, poverty fell by a total of just 6.4% or .12% per year! That means that, without government intervention, the poverty rate was falling 10 times faster than it did once government programs kicked in.
And that 11.6% itself deserves a closer look. In 2014, when the War on Poverty turned 50, the American poverty rate was still at 15%. That means that, after spending $20 trillion over the previous half-century, the government had successfully reduced poverty by a mere 3%.
When Barack Obama entered the White House in 2008, the poverty rate stood at 12.5%. It jumped up to 15% for four years before dropping back to 12.5% by the end of his presidency, which is where it stood when Donald Trump took the White House.
A mere three years later, Trump’s economic renaissance had reduced poverty by 2%, bringing it to its lowest level in history—10.5%, before the Covid scam derailed the prosperity engine. To put that in perspective, Donald Trump’s economy brought poverty down by 2% in 3 years, fully half as much as the government spending did in 50 years after spending $30 trillion!
And of course, the income numbers only tell part of the story. Sadly, there is much more to it. An unintended consequence of the War on Poverty appears to have been a skyrocketing of single-parent households, which is a significant driver of poverty.
In 1964, around 4% of American children were born to unwed mothers. By 2021, this percentage increased a full ten times to 40%. Under the heading of Unintended Consequences, one could observe that the welfare programs intended to save children from poverty have, by making it economically and socially viable for single-parent households to exist, effectively stranded many children in poverty and, worse, inflicted on them the coincident pathologies of poor education and crime, both of which, not coincidentally are also consequences of government failure.
From another perspective, let’s draw a comparison between the effects of government spending and the impact of private-sector investments. Let’s take just three companies, Apple, Amazon, and UPS, which together had about $1 trillion in revenue in 2022, approximately the same amount the government spent on welfare that same year. These companies—and many others like them—revolutionized industries; drove many trillions of dollars of business for customers and vendors and affiliates; directly and indirectly employ millions of Americans who are breadwinners for their families, and at the same time generated trillions of dollars of wealth for investors.
One can only wonder what might have happened if the more than $30 trillion the government wasted on its failed War on Poverty had, instead, been invested in startups similar to Apple and Amazon. Not that we want the government taking our money and investing it—WE DON’T—but imagine the impact that money might have had if it somehow had been targeted towards entrepreneurship and economic development.
The 2% reduction in poverty during Trump’s first three years demonstrated with crystal clarity that market-driven prosperity is a far more efficient vehicle for reducing poverty than government spending of any form. At a minimum, a market-driven solution would likely have fostered a far more empowered, economically vibrant, and dramatically more prosperous population than the generational dependency created by the government with its alphabet of aid programs.
Benjamin Franklin understood this more clearly than virtually any politician in America today, having commented:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Whether it’s student debt or the federal and state welfare perpetuation machines, America would be better off looking to the Founding Fathers for guidance than the grifters at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue…
You can follow Vince on Twitter at ImperfectUSA
Mexico cannot have it both ways
According to news reports, Mexico is challenging Texas’ floating barrier plan on Rio Grande. This is the story:
Mexico’s top diplomat said Friday her country has sent a diplomatic note to the U.S. government expressing concern that Texas’ deployment of floating barriers on the Rio Grande may violate 1944 and 1970 treaties on boundaries and water.
Foreign Relations Secretary Alicia Bárcena said Mexico will send an inspection team to the Rio Grande to see whether any of the barrier extends into Mexico’s side of the border river.
She also complained about U.S. efforts to put up barbed wire on a low-lying island in the river near Eagle Pass, Texas.
I don't know if Mexico has a case. I'm not familiar with border treaties. At the same time, Texas claims that the barrier is on the Texas side of the water.
Mexico does not help its case when they allow more caravans to come north. This is the other story:
Nearly a thousand migrants that recently crossed from Guatemala into Mexico formed a group on Saturday to head north together in hopes of reaching the border with the United States.
The group, made up of largely Venezuelan migrants, walked along a highway in southern Mexico, led by a Venezuela flag with the phrase 'Peace, Freedom. SOS.'
The men, women, children and teenagers were followed by Mexican National Guard patrols.
So what is Texas supposed to do? On one hand, Mexico complains about Texas stopping people from crossing the river, a dangerous thing to attempt, by the way. Some have actually drowned. On the other hand, Mexico allows another caravan to form and head north. Why isn't Mexico stopping this problem at the source?
Add to this mess a Biden administration without a border policy and you have the definition of a "problema," a big "problema."
Maybe the Biden administration should call on Mexico to control its own border more efficiently before they take Texas to court. Of course, I'm not expecting the Biden administration to do a thing or the same nothing that we've seen for 30 months.
P.S. Check out my blog for posts, podcasts and videos.
Image: Kmusser
LA Promised to Preserve Low-Cost Housing. These Tenants’ Homes Were Turned Into Hotel Rooms Anyway.
https://www.propublica.org/article/meet-people-uprooted-by-american-hotel-los-angeles?
LOS ANGELES - MEXICO'S SECOND LARGEST CITY AND BIGGEST MEX WELFARE OFFICE IN THE WORLD!
Homeless RV Encampments are Polluting LA Water and Beaches | Barry Coe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkWbZVvcnxU
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2022/11/democrat-controlled-sanctuary-city-of.html
Try the reality that illegal immigrants are routinely given free public housing by the U.S., based on the fact that they are uneducated, unskilled, and largely unemployable. Those are the criteria, and now importing poverty has never been easier. Shockingly, this comes as millions of poor Americans are out in the cold awaiting that housing that the original law was intended to help.
Thus, the tent cities, and by coincidence, the worst of these emerging shantytowns are in blue sanctuary cities loaded with illegal immigrants - Orange County, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, New York...Is there a connection? At a minimum, it's worth looking at. MONICA SHOWALTER
President Joe Biden, his administration, and the corporate media tried their best over the last two and a half years to downplay the record number of illegal border crossings, but a majority of Americans aren’t buying into the lie that the ongoing border crisis is improving....
A new poll from Pew Research found that 73 percent of Americans think the Biden administration is doing a bad job at handling the U.S.-Mexico border. MONICA SHOWALTER
N.A.F.T.A. JOE BIDEN'S RESPONSE TO AMERICA'S HOMELESS-HOUSING CRISES IS TO FLOOD AMERICA WITH MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS
Many Democrats understand that the welfare checks for foreign children will encourage more illegal immigration, he said:
They know what’s going on. But they know that they can’t say what their true goal is, which is actual open borders with open, uncontrolled migration both ways. And this is a step toward getting rid of borders.
“It’s a globalist mindset and it welcomes anything that moves toward open borders,” he concluded. NEIL MUNRO
Who Really Benefits From Illegal Immigration? | Victor Davis Hanson.... OTHER THAN NAFTA JOE???
More than five million illegal aliens have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border since Joe Biden took office, according to a study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. With some exceptions, these migrants tend to be low-skilled, poor, and come from countries where violence is normal and women and certain minorities are degraded. By importing millions of foreign nationals who come from countries with cultures and values that are diametrically opposed to ours, American leaders are setting the stage for exactly the kind of strife and turmoil that is occurring in France.
Tucker Carlson Tonight Interview DeSantis
OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED
New study says high housing costs, low income push Californians into homelessness
|
|
|
|
|
LIAR AND BRIBES SUCKER |
"The Worst President in the Last 100 Years" - Victor Davis Hanson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J6WjzdPBCo Biden was 25 in 1967, and was attending Syracuse University College of Law, from which he graduated 76th in a class of 85 in 1968. By 1967, when he supposedly talking to the Egyptian government on behalf of Golda Meir, he had already embarked upon his career of lying. A Syracuse College of Law faculty report on December 1, 1965 stated that Biden “used five pages from a published law review article without quotation or attribution,” and recommended that he fail a legal methods course because of his plagiarism. Levin charged the Democrats with unbridled hypocrisy, accusing Biden of racism. “This effort to try and turn conservatism into the KKK, into neo-Nazi ism is really amazing, especially considering the history of the Democrat Party and its embrace of the KKK and slavery and segregation and Jim Crow. Despite its history of filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, despite its current president, Joe Biden being a racist and segregationist early in his career opposing public school integration, calling it a jungle,” he said. |
No comments:
Post a Comment