THE DOCTRINE OF THE N.A.F.T.A. GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS IS TO SERVE THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS WITH ENDLESS WAVES OF INVADING 'CHEAP' LABOR SUBSIDIZED WITH WELFARE FUNDED BY TAXES ON MIDDLE AMERICA.
In many speeches, Mayorkas says he is building a mass migration system to deliver workers to wealthy employers and investors and “equity” to poor foreigners. The nation’s border laws are subordinate to elites’ opinion about “the values of our country,” Mayorkas claims.
If you live in America, are you seeing rent prices go up or down in your area this year? Despite recent claims that rent price growth is cooling down, new surveys just published by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies and Freddie Mac found that the majority of U.S. households, -- or about two-thirds of the entire population, -- reported that they had experienced at least one rent hike in 2023. Meanwhile, one in 10 said that they saw a whopping $400 price increase in the first quarter,
With the cost of housing exploding across the country, more and more people are missing rent payments and facing evictions. Today, eviction fillings are actually 50% higher than in 2019, when there were no pandemic moratoriums in place and the market was still considered “normal”. Official estimates reveal that more than 8 million renters may lose their homes this month, and that may be just the beginning of a trend that will devastate countless American families.
In 2019, the average price for a two-bedroom apartment in the U.S. was just $1,320. Today, families are paying on average $700 more in rent per month for the same two-bedroom unit. That’s a staggering 53% increase in just four years. Just in the past twelve months, rents rose by 26%, and a shortage of affordable homes is squeezing many American families, and putting them an edge closer to facing eviction this year.
A new survey published by the research center just a few weeks back found that 60% of U.S. households experienced at least one rent increase since January, including 17% who experienced two or more rent hikes. The increases ranged between $75 to $100 per week, meaning that for some families monthly rents have become $400 more expensive so far this year, with a ratio of 1 in 10, or about 4.4 million renters reporting that’s their case.
In contrast, a separate survey conducted by Freddie Mac revealed that just 38% of renters saw their wages increase, and 33% say their raise won’t cover their increased rent. The research sought to gauge the impact of rising prices on consumers' housing choices, and it was conducted this year from June 6 to 10 among a representative sample of 2,000 American consumers, aged 18 and older. Mirroring recent turmoil in the housing and rent markets, Alignable’s July Rent Report, released last week, exposed that rent delinquency rates have just experienced the highest surge in five months, jumping six percentage points from March, at 13.17%, or 28% than a year ago levels, when moratoriums were still in place in many areas.
Put another way, 8,070,524 people ages 18 or older in the U.S. aren’t caught up on rent payments and have already received an eviction notice, meaning that they could lose their homes at any minute now. This month, a record number of households can be displaced from their communities because they can no longer keep up with abusive rent hikes. That will have a far-reaching impact on our society as the disparity between the haves and have-nots gets even wider in America. But without a doubt, the biggest consequence of this crisis will be the devastating effect it will have on the finances, mental and physical health, and every other aspect of the lives of millions of Americans who can no longer afford their homes. Behind each one of these numbers and stats, there is a person, a family, a history. And if action isn’t taken to prevent mass evictions, all of these lives may be shattered all around us.
Solutions in Plain Sight
California could make a major dent in its homelessness problem merely by reversing some of its most destructive policies.
Half of America’s so-called unsheltered homeless live in California. It’s not hard to understand why. Along with having the most hospitable weather on earth, California is a welcoming place for drug addicts, petty thieves, and anyone else attracted to beachside living, free government food, and no requirement to work.
Federal policy has played a part in California’s homelessness problem. The counterproductive “Housing First” rule, emanating from the Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Obama era, favors programs that prioritize “supportive housing” over activities like drug counseling or job training.
The courts have given California further incentives to reject a more holistic approach to reducing homelessness. Most notably, a ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Martin v. Boise, prohibits enforcement of local vagrancy laws unless a community offers sufficient shelter beds. Rather than challenge this ruling, cities across California’s forgiving coast have allowed bureaucrats and “nonprofit” developers (with for-profit vendors and interlocking directorates) to build up a homeless-industrial complex—a vast, parasitic enterprise that constructs “permanent supportive housing” at an average cost well in excess of $500,000 per unit, and at a rate that doesn’t begin to keep pace with the growth of the unsheltered population.
California’s state laws add fuel to the fire. There is Proposition 47, sold to voters in 2014 as somehow guaranteed to reduce crime merely by downgrading felony drug and property crimes to misdemeanors. On top of that came Proposition 57, approved by voters in 2016, and abetted by AB 109, passed by the legislature in 2011; both of these released tens of thousands of “nonviolent” criminals out of state prisons and county jails without the means to monitor and assist their transition back into society. All these measures, designed to lower crime and restore order to chaotic streets, have had the opposite effect.
It isn’t as if solutions to California’s homeless epidemic aren’t hiding in plain sight: repeal Prop. 47, Prop. 57, and AB 109, and watch tens of thousands of homeless suddenly find housing. If laws against vagrancy, drug use, and petty theft are once again enforced, it will no longer be possible to live on the Venice Beach boardwalk, perpetually high, scaring the straights, and stealing whatever amenities aren’t provided for free by government “ambassadors.” Once the choice is “go to the shelter or go to jail,” the incentives will reverse, and the remaining problems will become more manageable.
California’s shelter situation is also not without solutions. The new facilities being built are grossly overpriced and sited in locations deliberately chosen to escalate costs, based on the absurd premise that everyone deserves to live on the beach in Southern California regardless of their means. There is no reason that the City and County of Los Angeles cannot erect shelters on less expensive real estate. These shelters could be built on one of L.A. County’s estimated 14,000 government-owned properties, or, if they cannot be located on land outside of residential neighborhoods, the city or county could purchase land in rural areas. Huge all-weather tents that cost under $1,000 each could house homeless families with children. Why aren’t California communities trying out solutions like these?
There’s plenty of money to do so—a stupefying amount of money, in fact, almost none of which is spent wisely. Last year, Los Angeles County spent over $1 billion on homeless programs. The City of Los Angeles is planning to spend $1.3 billion this year. The other 87 cities in L.A. County are no doubt also allocating substantial funds for the homeless. It’s reasonable to estimate that more than $3 billion will get spent this year, overall, by local governments in the county to assist, at last count, 75,000 homeless, 55,000 of them unsheltered. That’s $40,000 per person. More affordable solutions would leave a lot of money left over for security, operations, food, health care, job training, and drug counseling.
Anyone who expects California’s state and local governments to do anything sensible, however, is ignoring history and the corruption that grips the state. Amendment 2, passed by the state legislature and now scheduled to go before California voters in March 2024, will take away the right of local governments to reject the placement of public-housing projects in their neighborhoods. Piling on, the state legislature is also offering California’s spring primary voters Amendment 10, championed by Governor Gavin Newsom, which will declare an inalienable “right to housing” for all Californians. Imagine the implementation of this beast.
What about deregulating the most over-regulated housing market in America—the real reason housing is unaffordable in California? Not a chance. Better to tamper with the state constitution so that the government and its cronies can handle California’s housing shortage and homelessness surplus. They’ve done everything so well so far.
Not to be outdone by Sacramento’s follies, Los Angeles has come up with a “Responsible Hotel Ordinance,” a measure that would “require hotel operators to report to the city, every day, the number of vacant rooms at their establishments so the city can send homeless people over to the hotels to stay in the rooms that night.” Taxpayers will foot the bill, of course. The impact on tourists and conventioneers? Likely severe.
Some might argue that housing the unsheltered in tents is inhumane. They’re wrong. But it is inhumane to spend obscene amounts of money on overbuilt, overpriced, inappropriately located “supportive housing” while leaving addicts dying in the streets and letting criminals terrorize public venues. Let’s build the tents and use all the suddenly available cash to help these individuals recover their sobriety, their sanity, their skills, their dignity, and their lives.
The United States superpower cannot stop the global flow of poor economic migrants into the United States, says a top aide to border chief Alejandro Mayorkas.
But the U.S. can reduce illegal crossings by simply inviting the migrants to legally cross the border, regardless of the predictable economic and civic damage to Americans, according to Blas Nunez-Neto, the assistant secretary for policy at Mayorkas’s Department of Homeland Security,
The bottom line is: When you look at what people go through to come here — these people that we’re encountering on the border now that have crossed the Darién jungle [in Panama] — if you go down and look at the Darién, you can’t believe the number of people that are transiting that area every day … It’s families with small kids. So if [they]’re willing to do that, there’s very little we can do at the border that’s going to stop people from coming if we don’t also give them the hope that there’s a legal way to come here.
Nunez-Neto’s agency was given $97 billion in taxpayer funds to stop illegal migration in 2022.
“The guy seems to have rejected the concept of American sovereignty by arguing that the American people have no choice but to allow millions of people to enter our country whenever they wish,” responded Jon Feere, a former top manager at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Feere told Breitbart News:
f he is unable to stop illegal immigration, then he’s in the wrong job … If a cruise ship’s captain is telling you “We’re probably going to run into a few more rocks and crash into a few more docks,” you probably wouldn’t want to keep them steering the ship. When a person tells you that they’re not going to be able to do their job, you probably don’t want to keep them on [the job] — assuming that you want the mission actually carried out
In practice, Mayorkas and Nunez-Neto are spending billions of dollars to encourage and help a huge migrant flood to overwhelm the U.S. border laws, Feere said:
There are many things the executive branch could do to discourage illegal immigration and to make it clear that phony asylum claims will not be tolerated. But they’re continuing to encourage more and more illegal immigration and then claiming the system is overwhelmed as if they don’t have some control over it.
On August 10, Biden asked for another $23 billion to defend Ukraine’s borders and roughly $3 billion to help more economic migrants get through the U.S. border and into the opportunities needed by Americans.
Nunez-Neto was born in Argentina, and also felt like an outsider in his U.S. society, telling TheHill:
For Nunez-Neto, his approach is influenced by his background as an immigrant himself, describing immigration both as essential and a process that’s become less orderly as Congress has failed to update laws to address shifting migration patterns.
He came to the U.S. from Argentina at age 9 with his mother, who worked at the Argentine Embassy in Washington — a move that left him as one of the only Hispanic children in his downtown D.C. school.
“That was kind of hard — the adjustment to the states was hard. … As a kid, it was tough, because after a while I felt like I didn’t belong in the U.S. and I didn’t belong in Argentina. I was kind of a mix. As an adult, I’ve come to appreciate that’s actually a strength, right? Because you have windows into different cultures and different societies that other people don’t. And I think that can be pretty powerful.”
“The Executive Branch should be run by people who are tireless advocates for enforcing the laws the American people put on the books,” responded Feere, adding:
We don’t need [agency administrators] who are going to question the immigration laws. We need people who are going to enforce them. All this hand-wringing over our laws is simply resulting in less enforcement. And that in and of itself is resulting in more illegal immigration, which our system is struggling to deal with. Simple enforcement under the rule of law would go a long way in discouraging illegal immigration, fraudulent asylum claims, visa overstayers, and so on, ut this administration has made every effort to reduce immigration enforcement in every way it can.
But Nunez-Neto claimed that “we are, in fact, enforcing the laws that Congress enacted.”
However, Mayorkas, Nunez-Neto, and their deputies are opening up many quasi-legal paths for illegal migrants, and ignoring the legal requirement to detain migrants until their asylum claims are decided. Instead, they quickly register and release the migrants so they can get jobs, pay off their huge smuggling debts, and encourage more migrants to head northwards.
In July, Nunez-Neto admitted that the cartels have expanded their ability to move indebted labor into the U.S. economy:
We are now seeing the drug cartels increasingly becoming a key player in not just collecting taxes for people who transit through their territory [in Northern Mexico] — which is what we saw historically — but actually moving people and becoming deeply involved in human smuggling, not just in Mexico, but throughout the region, including, you know, in [South America’s] Colombia and Darien [Gap] region.
Nunez-Neto also predicted more migration: “We fully believe we could see another [monthly] increase in migration,” Nunez-Neto told TheHill.
In late May and early June, The administration claimed a 70 percent decline in illegal migration because their new rules replaced the Title 42 border barrier. In June, the number jumped again as Mayorkas welcomed 130,000 illegals, alongside another 70,000 migrants admitted via his quasi-legal programs, and perhaps 50,000 “gotaways” who were not arrested at the border.
But Nunez-Neto then blamed the nation’s lax asylum laws for the rising wave of migrants, saying, “We hear a lot like, “You could just shut the border down, if you wanted to.” And that’s not true. We have laws that allow people to claim asylum at the border when they’re encountered.”
WATCH: Exclusive Video Shows MASSIVE CAMP of Illegal Immigrants Waiting to Cross U.S. Border
John Rourke
0 seconds of 1 minute, 1 secondVolume 90%
Yet Nunez-Neto also admitted that most of the migrants are not eligible for asylum, for example, because they are migrating for economic gain: “We often talk about people at the border as asylum seekers, but the facts are that the majority of people we encounter are not eligible for asylum.”
Nonetheless, the migrants were admitted, said Nunez-Neto, because “we were very generous, and we wanted to err on the side of letting those people have their day in court.”
Feere responded:
Everyone understands that the majority of these people are not eligible for asylum. Yet the Biden administration continues to allow them [to pay smuggling debts], doesn’t detain them, and isn’t making any effort to deport them. In other words, they’ve effectively abolished not only our borders but also our asylum law.
Because at the end of it all, it doesn’t even matter [to Mayorkas or Nunez-Neto] whether a court rules against a person’s [asylum] case. Their position is that people should stay regardless and be rewarded with citizenship. They are amnesty advocates who don’t want to enforce laws.
Nunez Neto’s prediction of more migration “is an admission that their policies are doing nothing to stop illegal immigration,” said Feere. “They’re effectively admitting that what they’re doing is encouraging illegal immigration, which is the opposite of what the Executive Branch is supposed to be doing.”
TheHill.com is trusted by pro-migration advocates to favor pro-migration causes. For example, it described Nunez-Neto as a “mild-mannered policy wonk” and provided him with a flattering headline, “Meet the DHS official seeking a middle ground on the border.”