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.
TIME TO END MEXICO'S LOOTING? "As alarming as those numbers are, it's gotten a whole lot worse.
It's the reason why in both 2013 and 2015 I introduced legislation, the
"Remittance Status Verification Act," to fix this. I call this the
"Wire Act" for short."
"My bill would require a fee on remittances for customers who
wire money to another country but cannot prove that they are in the
United States legally. The fee would be used to enhance border security.
Basically, we would be able to dramatically improve border security
while making illegal immigrants pay for it."
"We also have evidence that many of those illegals who are remitting
money are more likely to be illegal immigrant households receiving
Social Security, health care benefits, unemployment insurance and/or
stimulus money. Is it really fair for those individuals to live off our
tax dollars but send untaxed, under-the-table money abroad?"
ON TOP OF THESE FIGURES ADD THE TENS OF BILLIONS HANDED TO INVADING MEXICANS IN THE FORM OF WELFARE. ON THE STATE LEVEL ALONE, MEXIFORNIA HANDS LA RAZA $30 BILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES. THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHIPS IN ANOTHER BILLION FOR THE LA RAZA ANCHOR BABY BREEDING FOR GRINGO WELFARE PROGRAM. NOW..... HOW MUCH DOES THE MEX DRUG CARTELS HAUL BACK? SOME ESTIMATES PUT THE NUMBER AT $40 - $60 BILLION! BLOG: IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES HAS A MEXICAN TAX-FREE UNDERGROUND
ECONOMY CALCULATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $2
BILLION PER YEAR! There are the billions of taxpayer dollars used to subsidize illegal
immigrants' health care and education. There's the revenue we lose out
on when illegal immigrants don't pay income taxes. And there's a less
recognized pot of billions — the billions of dollars of earnings that
illegal immigrants wire out of the United States with no tax or penalty.
The
war of words between Donald Trump and ex-Mexican President Vicente Fox
went nuclear yesterday when Fox suggested that Trump reminds him of
Hitler.
Previously,
Fox had responded to a question about Trump's proposed wall that he
says Mexico will pay for by dismissing the idea. "I'm not going to pay
for that f***ing wall," Fox said.
Trump
shot back: “FMR PRES of Mexico, Vicente Fox horribly used the F word
when discussing the wall. He must apologize! If I did that there would
be a uproar!"
For the record, Trump dropped 5 F-bombs in a little more than a minute at a rally last month in New Hampshire.
BLOG: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF NARCOMEX DID SOMETHING FOR THEIR POOR OTHER THAN EXPORT THEM TO LOOT AMERICA?
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ALONE HANDS MEXICAN ANCHOR BREEDERS A BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. THAT'S MORE THAN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF MEXICO SPENDS ON THE WELFARE FOR THEIR PEOPLE.
"He
has offended Mexico, Mexicans, (and) immigrants. He has offended the
Pope. He has offended the Chinese. He's offended everybody."
Fox's comments come one day after he delivered a scathing response on Trump's plan to make Mexico pay for a wall between the Mexico-U.S. border.
"I'm not going to pay for that f***ing wall," Fox said in an interview with Fusion's Jorge Ramos. Fox told Cooper he won't apologize for that remark.
Fox isn't the first to suggest Trump's rhetoric is similar to that of the German dictator.
Last month, Anne Frank's stepsister accused
Trump of "acting like another Hitler." And in December, former New
Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman invoked Hitler when discussing
Trump's plan to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S.
"If
you go and look at your history and you read your history in the
lead-up to the Second World War, this is the kind of rhetoric that
allowed Hitler to move forward," Whitman told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on
"New Day."
Invoking
the specter of Hitler used to go against a major unwritten rule in
politics. However, Democrats have been doing it for years when referring
to conservatives, so the epithet has lost much of its bite.
America
is not Weimer Germany, so some obvious parallels between Trump and
Hitler only go so far. Still, it's worrisome that Trump demonstrates a
towering ignorance of the Constitution and due process - reason enough
to keep a watchful eye on him on the off-chance he actually gets
elected.
AMNESTY: THE CONSPIRACY TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED BY LEGALIZING MEXICO'S LOOTING, PUSHING THE BORDERS OPEN WIDER, SABOTAGE OF E-VERIFY AND HANDING BILLIONS IN WELFARE TO MEXICAN FLAG WAVERS.
AND OBAMA'S SUCCESSOR TO LA RAZA SUPREMACY IS HILLARY CLINTON! Americans
sagely no longer trust political insider candidates, who have routinely
sold out American culture, progress, and safety, and the economy, to
special-interest lobbies after raising the debt ceiling in an unlimited fashion and capitulating to the invasion of millions of foreign nationals.
Prediction:
Tough-talking Donald Trump will crush the intelligence-leaking,
left-wing ideologue Hillary Clinton, for Americans are disgusted with
the bureaucracy's frontal assault on the economy and the nation's
territorial borders.
Track Record
Trump
has a track record of relentless business triumphs for two generations,
values a merit-based society, and has proven fearless in his defense of
America. He refuses to accede to the Republican old-guard approach,
creating an entirely new playbook for those willing to stray boldly from
the last fifty years of establishment-sanctioned protocols.
Clearly, a plurality of conservative, independent, and moderate Republican voters are not excited about the prospect of nominating another first-term senator with little track record of success outside the political arena.
Consequently,
can Americans trust Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio – two individuals who were
willing to sell out the American economy to foreign and
special-interest lobbies by way of their support for TPP?
Can Americans trust a man who sold out American culture to these same lobbies by way of his captaincy of the Gang of Eight?
Will even those in the Democratic Party be able to side with Bernie Sanders, a self-professed socialist,
to advance American progress? Is someone who casually sold out
American safety by negligently and/or criminally providing intelligence
to foreign adverse agents,
as Hillary Clinton did, a viable competitor against a man who
emphasizes his building of a border wall so that some semblance of
American sovereignty can be retained?
Americans
sagely no longer trust political insider candidates, who have routinely
sold out American culture, progress, and safety, and the economy, to
special-interest lobbies after raising the debt ceiling in an unlimited fashion and capitulating to the invasion of millions of foreign nationals.
Liberal Support
On the home front, the legitimate, legal population can now be fairly characterized as chronically underemployed. Urban protests are on the rise, while criminal foreigners
commit felonies and accept American taxpayer bounty like medical care
and free schooling at astonishing rates. It is difficult to envision a
casual nighttime stroll through any urban downtown in America where a
natural-born citizen could feel remotely protected or safe.
Many moderate to liberal-leaning women and young professionals,
who may typically vote Democrat, will understandably give up their
previously sacrosanct social and economic positions for the sake of a
more secure America. Few Americans fail to recognize the escalating and
rampant crime the Obama administration continues to exacerbate and
ignore by way of its open border policies.
Pew polls consistently show that women prefer Democratic lynchpin social net policies, as they vote time and again for the government to parent the ever-increasing needy population. Ironically, in 2016, personal safety
may very well, perhaps for the first time in decades, loom large as the
ultimate nanny-state issue for the liberal-female wing. Many Americans, across all walks of life, truly scared about their future prospects, are fueling the bump in Trump's polling numbers.
His blunt speech is a surrogate for action to protect Americans. By
willingly writing off hugely profitable business relationships with
companies as diverse as ESPN, NASCAR, Macy's, and NBC,
while simultaneously eschewing large-dollar donations, Trump has been
able to underscore his message of making America great again and putting
the interest of Americans first.
Nuclear Arms Buildup
Internationally, totalitarian Islam is on the march in the Middle East and the Mediterranean, and it extends even to African nations. The European Union is on the brink of economic collapse.
While frightening nuclear arms resolves are pursued by the most extreme
rogue nations on Earth, via North Korea and Iran, Obama actually has
increased these same nations' international clout by playing up to
simplistic American appeasers.
Russia continues to aggressively extend its ever-growing territorial aims,
absent any express or implied recourse from America. China, meanwhile,
is successfully securing new satellites of influence in Central America
and the Pacific Rim. The American Emperor, along with the entirety of
the American liberal elite, merely fiddles as international boundaries
collapse.
Obama's
administration is equally ignorant concerning both Chinese and Russian
elite, who increasingly make tactical advances by way of highly trained
cadres of military specialists.
America is now truly in a bind. Turbulent times, witnessed by saber-rattling in Turkey
and Saudi Arabia, require America's republic to follow Russia's and
China's lead by selecting high-capacity and politically engaged leaders
to prepare for global conflict.
Trump,
for his part, lacks the necessary military experience in the
geopolitical arena to be blindly trusted to execute correct strategies
to protect American interests. However, when one compares the equally
inexperienced junior senators vying for the GOP nomination, Trump
appears to be the most rational choice. The language of international
development is not foreign to Trump, and, to be fair, in
command-and-control economies, big business and government are
synonymous.
Could
America do worse by electing a leader who would ignore necessary global
strategic planning? Among the frontrunners, only Trump has a
successful background concerning the hiring of excellent and experienced
professionals relative to specific areas of expertise.
Traditional Leadership
In
hindsight, there was clearly room in the GOP primary for a fresh
candidate, who could project strength while dominating issues of
military prowess and border enforcement.
By
summer 2015, there was no candidate, except Trump, who had even begun
to galvanize the base. But even at this late date, GOP leadership and
financiers seem reluctant to put their personal economic interests on
hold. Moreover, Trump identifies with Americans who recognize the
realpolitik black hole that threatens their homeland. Traditional
Americans want to vote for a high-energy candidate whose campaign
reaffirms the Republican Party as the protector of security and the
American way of life.
The
political insiders' failure to consolidate behind a solid closed-border
candidate led to a vacuum on the pre-eminent issue of illegal
immigration. It was in this void that Trump's candidacy evolved. His
genius media campaign proved to dovetail nicely with commonsense conservative positions such as middle-class tax relief, veterans' health care and fair trade policies with China.
Considering
the probability that Trump will win the GOP nomination, it is high time
the highly paid GOP elite transfer their allegiance in helping Trump to
tap the crème de la crème of the American legal, diplomatic, military,
and espionage corps. Only in this way can the GOP establishment show
conservatives they really intend to get serious about not just winning
elections, but actually giving young Americans the firm sense of a
future America worth living in, with a common culture and
Judeo-Christian ethical foundation.
November 2016 Victory
Across
both political and economic spectra, there is an instinctive
realization that the United States can no longer afford to elect a
commander-in-chief who lacks the resolve to defend America's national
sovereignty.
When confronted with an existential threat, Americans will reject a hear-no-evil-see-no-evil approach to mounting internal strife and Islamic terrorism.
Democratic
strategists would like nothing more than to repeat the economic
election strategy of years past, where they contrast their concern for
the less fortunate with the cold-hearted policies of the Republicans.
However, the Democratic nominee will not be able to profitably sow
socialist lies when faced with the optics of a resolute, successful man
who vows to make America great.
Dr.
Marguerite Creel has a doctorate in public administration from the
University of Southern California. She has taught government at UNLV,
Peace College, and UNC-Chapel Hill.
A new poll
by Rasmussen Reports shows that most Americans prefer stricter border
control versus granting legal status to illegal immigrants.
Among
those surveyed, 59% of respondents believe that "gaining control of the
border" should be the key priority for any immigration reform.
A
majority (52%) also think that a pathway to citizenship for illegal
immigrants merely acts as a draw to encourage more illegal immigration.
Only 31% disagree with this view.
Support for Donald Trump's proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is at 51% among all voters and at 70% of Republicans.
More
than 60% want the federal government to be more aggressive in deporting
illegal immigrants, a level of support that has held constant for
several years.
An
additional 72% feel that the federal government should be far more
proactive when it comes to finding those visitors who have overstayed
their visa requirements and deporting them.
Similarly,
a majority (63%) of voters oppose proposals for providing free lawyers
to female and child illegal immigrants to help fight deportation orders
against them, while just 25% support such plans.
It
appears that the recent execution-style murder of a Massachusetts man
was committed by two Central American teens that came to the U.S. as
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)...READ MORE
BLOG:
NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS HAD MORE CONTEMPT FOR OUR LAWS, LEGALS, OR
BORDERS THAN THE "HOPE & CHANGE" HUCKSTER, BARACK OBAMA!
It appears that the recent execution-style murder
of a Massachusetts man was committed by two Central American teens that
came to the U.S. as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) under President
Obama’s open border free-for-all. Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant
minors—mostly from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras—have entered the
country through the Mexican border since the influx began in the summer
of 2014 and the administration has relocated them nationwide.
LEGALS IN THE LA RAZA MEXICAN-OCCUPIED STATE OF MEXIFORNIA ALREADY ARE FORCED TO PAY $1.4 BILLION IN "FREE" GRINGO PAID HEALTHCARE. HOW MUCH IS THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE COST YOUR STATE?
Sadly,
the latest segment in Barack Obama’s national makeover includes
granting access to the U.S to immigrants with venereal diseases. Unlike
the process on New York’s Ellis Island, where early 20th
century immigrants afflicted with benign non-communicable conditions
like varicose veins, hernias, and poor vision were denied entry, this
president must think humanitarianism is best exhibited by exposing healthy Americans to foreigners with contagious genital lesions.
What’s next, based on their skill set on the open sea, Obama unilaterally invites Somali pirates to be the official captains of America’s tugboats?
In 2009, the president pulled HIV from the list of diseases that bar immigrants from coming to the U.S. Now, according to a report issued
by the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies, Obama’s Health and
Human Services has publicly stated that the cost of handling and
treating immigrants with STDs does not impact taxpayers in a significant
way.
Moreover,
even though, by nature, venereal disease is contagious, the Obama
administration has also decreed that specific communicable diseases are
no longer “of public health significance.” Unfortunately, that opinion
only applies to those who are thankfully not among the victims sexually
abused by one of the 2,000 illegals in Texas, who, with or without a
sore on their private parts, were deported because of sex crimes.
That
“not…in a significant way” guarantee comes from the same government
that had a virtual non-response when undocumented workers illegally
employed in places like Chipotle
passed along pathogens, which sorry to say, were likely transported
into customer’s intestines via Crispy Corn Tacos contaminated with human
feces.
So,
if having an oozing genital sore does not prohibit a person entry into
the U.S., how is the Obama administration going to ensure that
immigrants, who tend to gravitate toward food service, diligently follow
proper hygiene protocol after manhandling their genitalia?
They’re not.
Law 360,
a website tool for those in the legal profession, reported that under
the new immigration rule, despite being infected with a sexually
transmitted disease, persons will still be granted entry into the U.S.
with things like: granuloma inguinale, which is spread through vaginal and anal intercourse; chancroid, which produces a contagious fluid; and bloody/pus-forming lymphogranuloma venereum, a bacterium common in Central and South America. HHS
maintains that although these three bacterial infections are
“transmitted through sexual contact, [they] have never been common in
the United States and over the past two decades are observed to be
increasingly rare throughout the world."
That
said, it appears as if importing individuals afflicted with abscesses
on their genitals may just be HHS’s way of assisting Obama’s ongoing
effort to level the playing field. And if that’s the case, pioneering
STD sufferers with a mind to relocate will have easy access into a
country where, with the government’s help, they are free to pursue a
vigorous sex life. Then, after those who are currently uncontaminated
become contaminated, Barack can pat himself on the back for making
another thing that’s “never been common in the United States” – common.
In
any case, similar health and wealth-sharing processes have already been
underway for almost eight years. By admitting what was once
inadmissible, Barack Obama’s effort to turn America into a Third World
hellhole has thus far been quite effective.For
example, syphilis, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, and leprosy are still on
America’s list of inadmissible communicable diseases. Nonetheless,
along with the unmonitored influx of illegals also came syphilis and gonorrhea, both of which are currently on the rise. As for leprosy, that nasty organism has officially landed, as has plagues like the deadly multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and death defying super lice. Maybe
the president’s rationale is that in the ongoing quest to dilute what
little is left of American culture, citizens contracting exotic Third World diseases, or being infected with an STD from a hardworking immigrant, is a tolerable tradeoff.In an article entitled: Obama Opens the Border to More STDs, Jon Feere, of The Center for Immigration Studies, said that the administration considers the STD rule changes beneficial because physicians
who would otherwise be administering physical exams on incoming
immigrants “will be able to devote more time and training to other, more
common and/or more serious health issues
That’s
brilliant! If HHS is to be taken seriously, STDs are being permitted to
arrive aboard the genitals of immigrants to further the common good. In
other words, rather than wasting time running a whole battery of tests
on pilgrims with penile pustules, stressed out Obamacare doctors will be
freed up to focus on more severe health issues. And just because the immigration system will be less likely to protect Americans from communicable diseases, Jon Feere writes that when it comes to STDs Americans are “not to worry” because:
HHS
… explains that these 'primarily tropical infections can be prevented
through improved personal hygiene and protected sex' and that if you do
get them, the STDs can be cured 'with a short, uncomplicated course of
antibiotic therapy.’
Wait!
Can Cipro also cure beheading, because that sounds reminiscent of the
reasoning behind accepting Syrian refugees with the full knowledge that
the incoming group will likely be infected with a smattering of
sabre-bearing subversives?
Either
way, notwithstanding the inevitability that ISIS will probably lop off a
few heads, when did providing antibiotics and hand-washing seminars to
sexually promiscuous immigrants become America’s priority? Furthermore,
aren’t our veterans dying on VA waiting lists, and isn’t there an impending antibiotic shortage? Even
still, Barack Obama, who knows better, obviously feels that spending
$100 million a year to care for immigrants with STDs is a great way to
invest the money of those who will ultimately end up suffering as a result of yet another in a long list of imprudent policies.
And so, on the path to ‘fundamental transformation,’ it’s nice to know that if an immigrant with a seething chancroid
ulcer should happen to rape an American, the ill-fated event can be
promptly remedied by an “uncomplicated course of antibiotic therapy.”
A new poll
by Rasmussen Reports shows that most Americans prefer stricter border
control versus granting legal status to illegal immigrants.
Among
those surveyed, 59% of respondents believe that "gaining control of the
border" should be the key priority for any immigration reform.
A
majority (52%) also think that a pathway to citizenship for illegal
immigrants merely acts as a draw to encourage more illegal immigration.
Only 31% disagree with this view.
Support for Donald Trump's proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is at 51% among all voters and at 70% of Republicans.
More
than 60% want the federal government to be more aggressive in deporting
illegal immigrants, a level of support that has held constant for
several years.
An
additional 72% feel that the federal government should be far more
proactive when it comes to finding those visitors who have overstayed
their visa requirements and deporting them.
Similarly,
a majority (63%) of voters oppose proposals for providing free lawyers
to female and child illegal immigrants to help fight deportation orders
against them, while just 25% support such plans.
It
appears that the recent execution-style murder of a Massachusetts man
was committed by two Central American teens that came to the U.S. as
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)...READ MORE
BLOG:
NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS HAD MORE CONTEMPT FOR OUR LAWS, LEGALS, OR
BORDERS THAN THE "HOPE & CHANGE" HUCKSTER, BARACK OBAMA!
It appears that the recent execution-style murder
of a Massachusetts man was committed by two Central American teens that
came to the U.S. as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) under President
Obama’s open border free-for-all. Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant
minors—mostly from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras—have entered the
country through the Mexican border since the influx began in the summer
of 2014 and the administration has relocated them nationwide.
AMNESTY: THE CONSPIRACY TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED BY LEGALIZING MEXICO'S LOOTING, PUSHING THE BORDERS OPEN WIDER, SABOTAGE OF E-VERIFY AND HANDING BILLIONS IN WELFARE TO MEXICAN FLAG WAVERS.
AND OBAMA'S SUCCESSOR TO LA RAZA SUPREMACY IS HILLARY CLINTON! Americans
sagely no longer trust political insider candidates, who have routinely
sold out American culture, progress, and safety, and the economy, to
special-interest lobbies after raising the debt ceiling in an unlimited fashion and capitulating to the invasion of millions of foreign nationals.
Prediction:
Tough-talking Donald Trump will crush the intelligence-leaking,
left-wing ideologue Hillary Clinton, for Americans are disgusted with
the bureaucracy's frontal assault on the economy and the nation's
territorial borders.
Track Record
Trump
has a track record of relentless business triumphs for two generations,
values a merit-based society, and has proven fearless in his defense of
America. He refuses to accede to the Republican old-guard approach,
creating an entirely new playbook for those willing to stray boldly from
the last fifty years of establishment-sanctioned protocols.
Clearly, a plurality of conservative, independent, and moderate Republican voters are not excited about the prospect of nominating another first-term senator with little track record of success outside the political arena.
Consequently,
can Americans trust Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio – two individuals who were
willing to sell out the American economy to foreign and
special-interest lobbies by way of their support for TPP?
Can Americans trust a man who sold out American culture to these same lobbies by way of his captaincy of the Gang of Eight?
Will even those in the Democratic Party be able to side with Bernie Sanders, a self-professed socialist,
to advance American progress? Is someone who casually sold out
American safety by negligently and/or criminally providing intelligence
to foreign adverse agents,
as Hillary Clinton did, a viable competitor against a man who
emphasizes his building of a border wall so that some semblance of
American sovereignty can be retained?
Americans
sagely no longer trust political insider candidates, who have routinely
sold out American culture, progress, and safety, and the economy, to
special-interest lobbies after raising the debt ceiling in an unlimited fashion and capitulating to the invasion of millions of foreign nationals.
Liberal Support
On the home front, the legitimate, legal population can now be fairly characterized as chronically underemployed. Urban protests are on the rise, while criminal foreigners
commit felonies and accept American taxpayer bounty like medical care
and free schooling at astonishing rates. It is difficult to envision a
casual nighttime stroll through any urban downtown in America where a
natural-born citizen could feel remotely protected or safe.
Many moderate to liberal-leaning women and young professionals,
who may typically vote Democrat, will understandably give up their
previously sacrosanct social and economic positions for the sake of a
more secure America. Few Americans fail to recognize the escalating and
rampant crime the Obama administration continues to exacerbate and
ignore by way of its open border policies.
Pew polls consistently show that women prefer Democratic lynchpin social net policies, as they vote time and again for the government to parent the ever-increasing needy population. Ironically, in 2016, personal safety
may very well, perhaps for the first time in decades, loom large as the
ultimate nanny-state issue for the liberal-female wing. Many Americans, across all walks of life, truly scared about their future prospects, are fueling the bump in Trump's polling numbers.
His blunt speech is a surrogate for action to protect Americans. By
willingly writing off hugely profitable business relationships with
companies as diverse as ESPN, NASCAR, Macy's, and NBC,
while simultaneously eschewing large-dollar donations, Trump has been
able to underscore his message of making America great again and putting
the interest of Americans first.
Nuclear Arms Buildup
Internationally, totalitarian Islam is on the march in the Middle East and the Mediterranean, and it extends even to African nations. The European Union is on the brink of economic collapse.
While frightening nuclear arms resolves are pursued by the most extreme
rogue nations on Earth, via North Korea and Iran, Obama actually has
increased these same nations' international clout by playing up to
simplistic American appeasers.
Russia continues to aggressively extend its ever-growing territorial aims,
absent any express or implied recourse from America. China, meanwhile,
is successfully securing new satellites of influence in Central America
and the Pacific Rim. The American Emperor, along with the entirety of
the American liberal elite, merely fiddles as international boundaries
collapse.
Obama's
administration is equally ignorant concerning both Chinese and Russian
elite, who increasingly make tactical advances by way of highly trained
cadres of military specialists.
America is now truly in a bind. Turbulent times, witnessed by saber-rattling in Turkey
and Saudi Arabia, require America's republic to follow Russia's and
China's lead by selecting high-capacity and politically engaged leaders
to prepare for global conflict.
Trump,
for his part, lacks the necessary military experience in the
geopolitical arena to be blindly trusted to execute correct strategies
to protect American interests. However, when one compares the equally
inexperienced junior senators vying for the GOP nomination, Trump
appears to be the most rational choice. The language of international
development is not foreign to Trump, and, to be fair, in
command-and-control economies, big business and government are
synonymous.
Could
America do worse by electing a leader who would ignore necessary global
strategic planning? Among the frontrunners, only Trump has a
successful background concerning the hiring of excellent and experienced
professionals relative to specific areas of expertise.
Traditional Leadership
In
hindsight, there was clearly room in the GOP primary for a fresh
candidate, who could project strength while dominating issues of
military prowess and border enforcement.
By
summer 2015, there was no candidate, except Trump, who had even begun
to galvanize the base. But even at this late date, GOP leadership and
financiers seem reluctant to put their personal economic interests on
hold. Moreover, Trump identifies with Americans who recognize the
realpolitik black hole that threatens their homeland. Traditional
Americans want to vote for a high-energy candidate whose campaign
reaffirms the Republican Party as the protector of security and the
American way of life.
The
political insiders' failure to consolidate behind a solid closed-border
candidate led to a vacuum on the pre-eminent issue of illegal
immigration. It was in this void that Trump's candidacy evolved. His
genius media campaign proved to dovetail nicely with commonsense conservative positions such as middle-class tax relief, veterans' health care and fair trade policies with China.
Considering
the probability that Trump will win the GOP nomination, it is high time
the highly paid GOP elite transfer their allegiance in helping Trump to
tap the crème de la crème of the American legal, diplomatic, military,
and espionage corps. Only in this way can the GOP establishment show
conservatives they really intend to get serious about not just winning
elections, but actually giving young Americans the firm sense of a
future America worth living in, with a common culture and
Judeo-Christian ethical foundation.
November 2016 Victory
Across
both political and economic spectra, there is an instinctive
realization that the United States can no longer afford to elect a
commander-in-chief who lacks the resolve to defend America's national
sovereignty.
When confronted with an existential threat, Americans will reject a hear-no-evil-see-no-evil approach to mounting internal strife and Islamic terrorism.
Democratic
strategists would like nothing more than to repeat the economic
election strategy of years past, where they contrast their concern for
the less fortunate with the cold-hearted policies of the Republicans.
However, the Democratic nominee will not be able to profitably sow
socialist lies when faced with the optics of a resolute, successful man
who vows to make America great.
Dr.
Marguerite Creel has a doctorate in public administration from the
University of Southern California. She has taught government at UNLV,
Peace College, and UNC-Chapel Hill.
A new poll
by Rasmussen Reports shows that most Americans prefer stricter border
control versus granting legal status to illegal immigrants.
Among
those surveyed, 59% of respondents believe that "gaining control of the
border" should be the key priority for any immigration reform.
A
majority (52%) also think that a pathway to citizenship for illegal
immigrants merely acts as a draw to encourage more illegal immigration.
Only 31% disagree with this view.
Support for Donald Trump's proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is at 51% among all voters and at 70% of Republicans.
More
than 60% want the federal government to be more aggressive in deporting
illegal immigrants, a level of support that has held constant for
several years.
An
additional 72% feel that the federal government should be far more
proactive when it comes to finding those visitors who have overstayed
their visa requirements and deporting them.
Similarly,
a majority (63%) of voters oppose proposals for providing free lawyers
to female and child illegal immigrants to help fight deportation orders
against them, while just 25% support such plans.
It
appears that the recent execution-style murder of a Massachusetts man
was committed by two Central American teens that came to the U.S. as
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)...READ MORE
BLOG:
NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS HAD MORE CONTEMPT FOR OUR LAWS, LEGALS, OR
BORDERS THAN THE "HOPE & CHANGE" HUCKSTER, BARACK OBAMA!
It appears that the recent execution-style murder
of a Massachusetts man was committed by two Central American teens that
came to the U.S. as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) under President
Obama’s open border free-for-all. Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant
minors—mostly from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras—have entered the
country through the Mexican border since the influx began in the summer
of 2014 and the administration has relocated them nationwide.
Many
Americans shook their heads in 2008 wondering how in the world
President Obama was elected when he had told us plainly that he wanted
to “fundamentally transform” our country. Then, the perplexity increased
when he was reelected in 2012 long after his radical policies and
disdain for the Constitution were abundantly evident. Unbelievably,
after suffering through the effrontery of the Obama Administration’s
arrogance and his flaunting of executive actions instead of
bipartisanship, the nation is now enthralled with Donald Trump’s
bombastic, flamboyant, but empty promises – based solely on his ability
to capitalize on the public’s anger and to manipulate people’s fears,
rather than specific policy proposals or potential for effective
constitutional governance -- to come in and liberate us from the
overweening government bureaucrats with their endless thirst for control
and restore America’s greatness. The Washington Postsummarized the situation
by claiming that Donald Trump is giving the establishment (on both
Capitol Hill and K Street) the “middle finger” and “his supporters love
it.” One analyst likened Trump to a parasite eating up the host; another
called him America’s “Fatal Attraction.”
Clearly,
Donald Trump is a brash, arrogant bully with a “yuuge” ego who sees
things in black and white, winners and losers. Trump offends
sensibilities with unpresidential behavior, crudities and bad manners,
along with insults and accusations of lying against other candidates.
Still, the more obnoxious he has become, the better his ratings. He has
tapped into middle-America’s need for a “straight-up guy” who’ll “tell
things like they are” without any consideration for how he offends the
PC crowd. The public has had enough of politicians who talk out of “both
sides of their mouths” to say one thing to the voters during election
campaigns while planning to do another. At this point, the public
doesn’t believe any politician; they want an outsider. They’ll take the
crudity because it least it’s an authentic expression of their
frustration and anger.
So
how did we get to the point that it was possible for Obama to be
elected and for Trump to be a serious contender for the presidency?
Nebulous Faith:
Despite President Obama’s claims to the contrary, America was founded
on Judeo-Christian principles. It was founded to allow freedom of
religion (as the saying goes, it was not founded to be free from religion).
A significant majority of Americans identify as Christian; at the same
time, church attendance is not keeping up with population increases.
Established churches where orthodox beliefs are captured in doctrinal
statements and taught in classes are being replaced by
non-denominational churches that focus more on “worship” than on
“doctrine.” The late author Henri Nouwen, who wrote Show Me the Way,
noted that the church is increasingly seen as an “obstacle” rather than
the “way” to Jesus. The movie “Unbroken” chronicled an inspiring
example of a shattered life that was restored by turning to faith in
God; at the societal level, however, faith has shed the necessity for
doctrinal fidelity as well as the necessity for repentance for sin to
transform lives.
In
this postmodern age of moral relativism, faith, along with truth, has
come to be defined however anyone wants to define it, rather than
determined by a life that responds to God’s grace through devoted
consistency in living out the moral principles in scripture. Sadly,
today’s candidates can throw in a few Christian buzz words and be
acceptable to faithful believers without being bound by character and
integrity to live out their faith and morality in action. Polling data indicates
that almost 70 percent of voters, and almost 90 percent of
Evangelicals, expect a presidential candidate to be “strongly
religious.” Yet, in 2012, 42 percent of the Protestant Christian vote
went for Obama as did 21% of the self-identified, white, born-again,
evangelical Christian voters. Now, Evangelicals figure prominently among
Trump supporters and high profile Evangelical leaders have endorsed
Trump in spite of the lack of consistency between his actions and their
Christian principles and moral values.
PC Education: It
is commonly recognized that there are major problems with public
education in America and consequently the numbers of homeschooled
students is up by nearly 62 percent in the last ten years. More and more
people are questioning the value of a college education when students
spend more time in drunken stupors, participating in demonstrations, and
partying than in studying. Moreover, parents are alarmed that colleges
and universities are being converted into centers of growing intolerance
for differing points of view -- especially for conservative ideas.
Ironically, civility and respectful debate are rare while diversity and
inclusion are emphasized. Emotions and feelings are important and hard
thinking is rarely taught or experienced. Politically Correct language
is the norm; nothing can be allowed that offends the proliferating
collection of victims on the Left.
No
wonder the electorate responds emotionally and doesn’t bother to ask
hard questions or probe into the ramifications of policy positions. No
wonder voters choose which candidate to support based on likeability or
personality regardless of whether they agree with the person’s positions
on the issues.
Cultural Disintegration: There
is no way to overstate the influence of the media and entertainment
industries in shaping attitudes and values. In many respects both Obama
and Trump are products of the media. President and Mrs. Obama have been
media darlings since their earliest days on the national scene. With his
ability to play to the crowd, Trump is always good for headlines.
Neither man sees a distinction between politics and entertainment.
Trump, in particular, knows how to “read” a situation and play it for
maximum personal benefit. He accurately assessed the public anger and
desire to shove the establishment aside; he is cold and calculating
enough to push that all the way to the White House. The public wants
something to talk about and they totally reject anything dull, boring,
or routine. Their attitude is: Don’t bother me with facts; my mind is
already made up.
Cynics
tell us that we get the leader we deserve. The phrase has become a
cliché because so much experience seems to confirm it. I cannot watch
today’s political theatre without being reminded of the modern version
of the cliché: Frank Underwood, the president in the television hit,
“House of Cards”, sitting at his Oval Office desk in Season 4 with his
words being accompanied by an expose of the ruthless exploitation that
led to him becoming the chosen one.
If
you ever find yourself driving through southeast Kansas, there is a
small town tucked away off U.S. Route 169 that you might like. Its
appearance and culture is one of quiet tradition, boasting no flashy
distinctiveness. While it has a library, a safari museum, a few parks,
and a cement factory, the town of Chanute, in all its aura of classic
Americana, is pretty much your average Kansas small town. Like any
small town, Chanute is home to a variety of rich life stories. One of
those stories is about a man I knew named Pat.
Other
than a handful of classes at the local community college, Pat’s formal
schooling stopped after high school. He earned his first job at the age
of fourteen sweeping floors at Caldwell Floor Covering, a modest carpet
store located on West Cherry Street. As time progressed, he learned
how to lay carpet, ceramic, hardwood, laminate, and vinyl. After a
brief period in the National Guard, Pat returned to Caldwell, where his
burgeoning reputation of trust and reliability earned him the
responsibility of managing the store’s books. Fifty-six years later, he
would retire from Caldwell as the owner.
Outside
work, he and his wife, Billie Maxine, a nurse, raised a family. In
1972, the couple and their three sons (and later, a daughter) moved into
a tiny two-bedroom house on a ten-acre hog farm. The scene was hardly
picturesque: incessant grazing had stripped the pasture of vegetation,
and the house was in a severe state of disrepair, complete with its own
mice and roach infestation.
But
to Pat and Billie, this despondent parcel of land was an opportunity.
Embracing a work ethic forged in their own upbringing, they repaired the
house, dug a pond, and planted grass. To make ends meet, they
cultivated a large vegetable garden and raised chickens, cattle, and
swine for the family's consumption. Although progress was slow, it was
steady; as the years passed, Pat and Billie claimed their piece of the
American Dream and built a happy life for their children.
In
December 2015, the Washington Post reported that forty-eight percent of
my generation (millennials) believe that the American Dream is dead.
It is not a crazy belief – given the effects of wage stagnation, student
debt, and a shrinking middle class, it is unsurprising the traditional
benchmarks of adulthood, like getting married and buying a home, appear
so far out of reach for millennials. It seems whenever our ostensibly
bleak economic prospects are coupled with our teetering ability to gain
the much-needed approval of older generations, we cannot help but view
our futures so dubiously. Perhaps this is why millennials are the most
medicated, depressed, and anxious generation in recent history.
So what should we millennials do about it?
On
the one hand, we could brand ourselves "democratic socialists," blame
our parents, scorn corporations, and deride capitalism. We could wallow
in our apparent inability to thrive absent taxpayer-backed college,
health care, minimum wages, and "safe zones." We could avoid building
resilience, cling fervently to the questionable precept of
intersectionality, and hand off to our children a gargantuan expansion
of the national debt and federal bureaucracy. Then
again, we could acknowledge that economic mobility is no worse than it
was fifty years ago and that no generation in history was as ideally
situated to realize the American Dream as we are. We could take a page
out of Pat’s and Billie’s book, rethink what opportunity means, and
perhaps find the personal satisfaction we crave by building something
from nothing, rather than chasing down the increasingly hollow
credentials of "achievement" that seem to define our generation.
Indeed,
we could live up to our reputation of "everybody gets a trophy," or we
could find our own hog farm, roll up our sleeves, and discover a prize
truly reflective of what we have earned. I hope we make the right call. Thomas
Wheatley is a law student at George Mason University School of Law in
Arlington, Virginia. Email him at twheatl2@gmu.edu.
(CNSNews.com) --
Although the national unemployment rate in January was 4.9%, a broader
measure used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), called U-6, which
includes total unemployed, persons marginally attached to the labor
force, and those working part-time for economic reasons, shows that the unemployment rate was 9.9% in January 2016.
That
9.9% unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, was the same in December
and November 2015, and up slightly from October, when it was 9.8%.
In January 2015, a year ago, the U-6 unemployment rate was 11.3%.
Prior
to October 2015, the last time the U-6 unemployment rate was in the
9.8-9.9% range was in May and June 2008, seven months before Barack
Obama was inaugurated president.
Source: Gallup and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
When
Obama entered office in January 2009, the U-6 unemployment rate was
14.2%. It's peak was in late 2009, early 2010, when it hit 17.1%
unemployment for several months.
The Gallup polling company calls the U-6 number the "Real Unemployment" rate
in America. As it states, "Widely reported unemployment metrics in the
U.S. do not accurately represent the reality of joblessness in
America."
"For
example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not count a
person who desires work as unemployed if he or she is not working and
has stopped looking for work over the past four weeks," says
Gallup. "Similarly, the BLS does not count someone as unemployed if he
or she is, for instance, an out-of-work engineer, construction worker or
retail manager who performs a minimum of one hour of work a week and
receives at least $20 in compensation."
The
Unaccompanied Children Crisis: Does the Administration Have a Plan to
Stop the Border Surge and Adequately Monitor the Children?
Kevin writes that it’s a mystery to him “that conservatives are so
miserable at the moment, when they are presented with such a desirable
choice” between Cruz and Rubio. Let me explain.
There’s no doubt that both “are self-conscious conservatives in the
sense that they are products of the conservative movement,” as Kevin
says, “in a way that no president has been since Ronald Reagan.” I’ll
even concede that Rubio got into bed with Schumer because he was
auditioning for the job of Republican We Can Do Business With, a
deal-maker who can get things done, and a deal on immigration seemed
like a good place to start.
But there are two factors that might help resolve Kevin’s mystery.
First, as I argue on the homepage today, immigration is not just another
issue. It impacts every aspect of policy, and is irreversible. Angela
Merkel’s conservative bona fides are irrelevant next to the damage she
has done to her country. If Rubio were to change his tune on immigration
after winning the election (as he’s done after winning every previous
election), nothing else he did would matter.
And the chances of that happening are greater than Kevin thinks. He
writes that, “our hypothetical President Rubio is never going to sign
that amnesty bill because Congress isn’t ever going to send it to him.”
He could be right – If Rubio wins, I certainly hope that’s the way it
would play out. But the House has different leadership than in 2013.
While John Boehner was basically in favor of a Gang of Eight-style
policy of amnesty for illegals and massive expansion of legal
immigration, he wasn’t an ideologically committed supporter of unlimited
immigration like Paul Ryan. Remember, in 2013-2014, Ryan worked with
Luis Gutierrez to pass a version of the Senate bill, just as Rubio had
worked with Schumer. With Ryan as Speaker and Rubio in the White House,
the odds that they’d try again are greater than we should be comfortable
with, especially when the anti-borders interests would take a Rubio
victory as proof that you can push amnesty and increased immigration and
live to tell about it.
This notion that Marco Rubio doesn’t know what he’s doing is just not true.
Eagle Forum has published a memo detailing Marco Rubio’s lies to
conservatives in his effort to get Chuck Schumer’s immigration bill
passed. “Lies” is a strong word, but it’s the only word that fits. This
wasn’t the natural trimming of politicians, like Rubio’s justification
of sugar subsidies in the service of his financial patrons the Fanjul
brothers. From Cicero to Reagan, all successful politicians engage in
misdirection or exploit ambiguity (including all the other current
Republican hopefuls). In this case, though, Rubio led a Clintonian
campaign of calculated falsehoods designed to sell Schumer’s Gang of
Eight bill to conservatives.
Those falsehoods are too numerous to list in a blog post – read the
whole paper. But some examples regarding just one part of the bill: As
Rubio himself was forced to admit eventually, Schumer’s bill granted
work permits and Social Security numbers to illegals up front, and
promised the enforcement targets would be met in future years – just
like the failed 1986 amnesty. And yet, here’s what he told conservative
media:
To Limbaugh: “if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that
nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in
place, I won’t support it.”
To Hannity: “I don’t think any of that [amnesty] begins until we certify
that the border security progress has been real. That a workplace
enforcement mechanism is in place. That we are tracking visitors to our
country, especially when they exit.”
Bill O’Reilly said: “Senator Rubio told me on the phone today that it
would be at least 13 years, 13, before people in the country illegally
right now could gain full legal working status and even longer to
achieve citizenship.”
Rubio also lied about the size of the bill’s unprecedented increase in
legal immigration, he lied about the scope of waivers, he lied about
welfare eligibility, he lied to law enforcement about amnesty for gang
members.
Disagreement over policy is one thing; Jeb’s immigration views, for
instance, are not shared by most of the people whose votes he’s seeking,
but he’s honorably forthright about what he believes. Rubio, on the
other hand, tried to trick his own partisans. I had actually forgotten
the scope of his dishonesty in pushing Schumer’s bill; Eagle Forum has
done a service by collecting it all in one place. And Rubio has never
apologized for it. Maybe someone will bring it up at tonight’s debate.
Immigration isn’t just another issue. Despite his “does not compute”
glitch Saturday night (which will likely dog him for the rest of his
career, like Rick Perry’s “oops” and Dan Quayle’s “you’re no Jack
Kennedy” moment), Marco Rubio is still a live contender for the
nomination. So it remains important to explain why I think his
immigration record disqualifies him from being the 2016 nominee.
Many conservatives who admire Rubio’s genuine political talent agree
that his shilling for Chuck Schumer’s Gang of Eight bill was bad. But
they offer two reasons that this should not be an impediment to his
being the Republican presidential nominee. First, they say, Rubio has
learned his lesson and, second, he’s quite solid on many other issues.
Both parts of this defense warrant examination: Has Rubio truly changed
his spots on immigration? And is immigration simply one issue among
many, so that Rubio’s deviation there is outweighed by his fidelity on
others?
As to the first question: There’s every reason to suspect Rubio is
merely an election-year immigration hawk. A devastating 14-page
indictment of Rubio’s immigration record, prepared by Eagle Forum (html
and pdf), lays out his duplicity in painful detail. Early in his career,
anti-borders groups were delighted with Rubio’s conduct in the Florida
legislature; the head of one of them, NALEO, said, “He, as speaker, kept
many of those [immigration-control bills] from coming up to a vote. We
were very proud of his work as speaker of the House.”
Then, when Rubio ran for the Senate, he turned into a hawk. As CNN’s
greatest-hits clip at last month’s debate showed, Rubio said the
following, among other things, during his 2010 campaign: “Earned path to
citizenship is basically code for amnesty, it’s what they call it. . . .
It is unfair to people who have legally entered this country to create
an alternative pathway for individuals who entered illegally and
knowingly did so.” This hawkishness on immigration was an important
reason for his upset victory over Charlie Crist.
“Once he got elected, he betrayed us all,” according to Phyllis
Schlafly, Rubio’s first major outside endorser in the Senate primary.
Rubio chose to become the chief salesman and public face of Chuck
Schumer’s Gang of Eight bill and, as the Eagle Forum indictment shows,
his mendacity went well beyond embracing the amnesty he’d so recently
denounced: It included a calculated effort to dupe conservatives about
what was really in the bill. It was so bad that the head of the ICE
agents’ association said that “he directly misled law-enforcement
officers” at a meeting right before the bill was introduced in the
Senate.
Then, when the voters rebelled at Senate passage of his monstrous bill
and the House refused to pass it, Rubio denounced his own bill, saying
the public doesn’t trust Washington to follow through on its enforcement
promises. (Of course, this was apparent to anyone with eyes to see and
ears to hear, not just in 2013 but even in 2007, when Bush’s amnesty
push failed.)
To sum up: Rubio was anti-enforcement in the Florida legislature, then
an enforcement hawk at election time in 2010, then Schumer’s cabana boy
in 2013, then a hawk again at election time. Anyone can flip once —
people really do change their minds, or even see political writing on
the wall and embrace a new position. But flipping and flopping in time
with the election cycle should be cause for skepticism, to say the
least.
And Rubio hasn’t even really renounced Schumer’s bill. He still supports
all the parts of it, but thinks they should be passed separately rather
than in a comprehensive package. And he is still an enthusiastic
supporter of the most important piece of the Schumer-Rubio legislation —
its doubling of legal immigration, from 1 million a year to 2 million,
which, combined with the amnesty, would have resulted in the issuance of
30 million green cards in the first decade after passage.
Not only has Rubio not recanted his support for doubling immigration,
he’s actually sponsored a bill in this Congress to triple H-1B
admissions of foreign workers (the I-Squared Act — which Michelle Malkin
has cheekily labeled Rubio’s second-worst immigration bill). What’s
more, personnel is policy, and Rubio’s inner circle — pollster Whit
Ayres, for instance, and Cesar Conda, his chief of staff during the
Schumer romance and likely White House chief of staff — are confirmed
opponents of immigration limits. The idea that the open-borders
corporate culture of the Rubio operation would be trumped by some
enforcement promises made on the campaign trail is a fantasy.
But even supposing all this is true, Rubio is sound on many other issues
— his answer on the abortion issue Saturday night, for instance, was
very strong and, while he’s a little too interventionist for my taste,
he’s firmly in the GOP mainstream and probably more knowledgeable on
foreign policy than his rivals. Since no candidate is perfect, isn’t
focusing so intently on immigration an unrealistic demand for purity?
After all, Rubio’s opportunistic embrace of sugar subsidies, at the
behest of a major donor, is the kind of soiled compromise we often
accept.
But immigration isn’t just another issue, like farm subsidies or taxes
or even battling radical Islam. Immigration is a meta issue, one that
affects almost every arena of national life — from politics to education
to jobs to security to health care to national cohesion. If we set
taxes too high, we can lower them later. If we let the Navy get too
small, we build more ships. But if we get immigration wrong, we can’t
undo it: People are not widgets, and we can’t ask for a do-over after
adding 30 million green cards in a decade.
What’s more, the deep gulf in views over immigration between elites and
the public, between globalists and patriots, has given immigration a
symbolic importance as a marker of legitimacy. As Ramesh Ponnuru has
written, “A hard line on immigration, however it is defined, is now part
of the conservative creed.”
In effect, Rubio is an Angela Merkel Republican — genuinely conservative
on most every issue, except the one that counts above all others.
For this reason alone, he should be denied the nomination. If he were to
succeed in getting it, the donor class and its politicians would take
away the lesson that they can betray the voters all they want on this
potentially nation-breaking issue, and simply talk their way out of it.
Voltaire wrote, in Candide, that “it is good to kill an admiral from
time to time, in order to encourage the others.” Rubio’s betrayal
doesn’t warrant the gallows, but he must be denied this prize, “in order
to encourage the others.”
This doesn’t mean he’s finished in politics. He’s a young man with
immense political gifts and has plenty of time before 2020 or 2024 to
atone in Congress for his transgressions and earn back the people’s
trust. If he were to run for governor of Florida, for instance, he could
amass a record of fidelity to immigration law by, say, passing
mandatory E-Verify for his state. Even before then, during the remainder
of his Senate term, he could work with Jeff Sessions to introduce
legislation to end chain migration and abolish the Visa Lottery — or, at
the very least, withdraw his sponsorship of the anti–American-worker
I-Squared H-1B bill.
If Marco Rubio can convincingly turn away from his Merkelian past, he
can have a bright future, perhaps even become the 46th or 47th president
of the United States. But to nominate him in 2016 would be a profound
mistake.
4. Where Does United States v. Texas Stand after Scalia's Death?
By Jon Feere
CIS Immigration Blog, February 14, 2016
. . .
If United States v. Texas results a 4-4 split decision, it
means that the lower court holding stands and President Obama's
unilateral amnesty remains enjoined. Critical to this analysis, any
opinion issued by the Supreme Court would not be precedent-setting.
(It would also likely be quite short. For example, in a 4-4 case from
2010, the Court simply wrote: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally
divided Court.")
What is unique in this situation is that the lower court's holding is in
the injunction phase – a full trial on the merits of DAPA and the
states' interests has not been held. This means that if the Supreme
Court were to split evenly, a hearing on the merits of the case is still
likely to be held at some point in the future by the lower court. At
some point after that, it is possible that the case would get appealed
back up to the Supreme Court. This would presumably happen after a new
justice has been appointed and after a new president has been elected.
What's interesting about this is that if the Obama administration hadn't
pressured the Court to take up the case, it could have slipped to the
next term and perhaps the immigration case would not be on everyone's
radar to the extent that it is now, making it easier for the president
to persuade Congress to allow him to appoint a new justice later this
year. It would be much more preferable from the administration's
perspective to appoint a new justice before the immigration case is
decided.
. . . http://www.cis.org/feere/where-does-united-states-v-texas-stand-after-scalias-death
5. Criminal Alien Assistance Funds: Wanting Your Cake and Eating It Too
By Dan Cadman
CIS Immigration Blog, February 12, 2016
. . .
But one can understand congressional interest in creating favor with
politically savvy and powerful law enforcement officials throughout the
country, such as county sheriffs and major city police chiefs, by
establishing an atmosphere of good will and cooperation between law
enforcement agencies nationwide and federal immigration agents charged
with finding and removing alien criminals.
The problem is that recalcitrant state legislatures and city and county
councils have erected barriers to such cooperation. Likewise, many
sheriffs and police chiefs have adopted rules that render the jobs of
federal agents much more difficult by refusing to honor immigration
detainers and declining to notify agents of arrests or the release dates
of aliens. This "sanctuary city" movement (which includes counties and
states along with cities), having gone unchecked by the administration,
has experienced mushroom-like growth — especially since the
administration itself has unilaterally created policy barriers by
narrowly defining when agents may even file such detainers. Not to
mention the litigiousness of open-borders groups that have sued state
and local law enforcement organizations for honoring the detainers
(suits which, as often as not, the federal government has run from,
leaving their enforcement "partners" to fend for themselves).
Still, there is something unconscionable about holding out one hand for
federal money and using the other to stiff-arm federal immigration
agents trying to do their job. Such is the case with California, which
even as it receives tens of millions of dollars in SCAAP money, has
enacted into law the "Trust Act", a statute prohibiting both state and
local California agencies from fully cooperating with immigration agents
or honoring detainers. This has on more than one occasion led to
unnecessary deaths (see here, here, and here). Yet, amusingly, a
California spokesman is quoted as lamenting the potential loss of money
because of the serious impact it will have on his state, and talking
about the number of alien inmates with detainers filed against them. One
wonders how many would, in the end, actually be honored, and how many
were rejected out of hand in the first place.
. . . http://www.cis.org/cadman/criminal-alien-assistance-funds-wanting-your-cake-and-eating-it-too
6. "We Might as Well Abolish Our Immigration Laws"
By Dan Cadman
CIS Immigration Blog, February 8, 2016
. . .
I mentioned two ways in which this ultimate dismantling might come
about. One involved stacking the deck of key appointments, such as
enlarging the bench of immigration judges with individuals who share the
president's open borders outlook. That has been happening in earnest,
and as one can see from a cursory glance at the official website of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, it includes not just
rank-and-file judges, but also a slew of six new assistant chief
immigration judges who will ride herd over the others. Can anyone doubt
their philosophical proclivities?
The other way involves continuing to mandate executive actions that
crush even the semblance of immigration law enforcement. This most
recent directive to the Border Patrol certainly meets that test. And it
is not the only one. The administration has also directed that aerial
surveillance of our borders be cut in half. This is incredible at a time
when ISIS terrorists have threatened to infiltrate the United States by
any means necessary. One suspects that they care little about that
fight, though, since they have shown no will for it to date, and since
it will become the inheritance of the next president. It takes little
imagination to gauge that the reasons for the cut are twofold: First, to
permit the flooding of our borders with citizens from our southern
neighbors in a way that they believe, or at least hope, will force the
issue of a future broad-based amnesty. Second, and more prosaically, to
minimize the possibility that there will be a leak of aerial
surveillance videos that reveal exactly how damaging the new rules of
engagement for Patrol Agents are by showing footage of large numbers of
aliens crossing the border with impunity and indifference to the
possibility of apprehension.
. . . http://www.cis.org/cadman/we-might-well-abolish-our-immigration-laws
7. DHS OIG Issues a "No Recommendation" Audit Report — Or Does it?
By Dan Cadman
CIS Immigration Blog, February 8, 2016
. . .
As one can easily see, the left column, highlighted in blue, says, "What
We Recommend: We made one recommendation to CBP to develop and
implement a process to determine program costs for the SOG."
The text immediately to the right of the blue says, "We made no
recommendation regarding the lack of formal performance measures in the
SOG program [but that] CBP concurred with our recommendation. The
recommendation is resolved and open."
8. A Look at the New Center for Migration Studies Illegal Population Estimates
By Steven A. Camarota
CIS Immigration Blog, February 8, 2016
. . .
One of the biggest problems with the CMS report is the way the findings
are presented. The headline and the accompanying article emphasize a
"continued" decline in the illegal population. But this conclusion is
not supported by data they present. The illegal estimates from CMS are
based on the public-use file of the American Community Survey, and like
any survey it has a margin of error. Although CMS does not provide it,
for a population of 10.9 million illegal immigrants drawn from the
public-use file of the ACS, the margin of error must be a little over
100,000. We can estimate the margin of error for the illegal population
by using the total foreign-born Mexican population in the 2014 ACS as a
proxy population. In 2014 the ACS showed 11.7 million Mexican
immigrants, with a margin of error of ±110,000. If we simply use the
same procedure for calculating the margin of error for an illegal
population of 10.9 million, the margin of error would be ±106,000 for
2014. This assumes a 90 percent confidence level. If we assume a 95
percent confidence level the margin of error is +/- 127,000. The illegal
population is very similar in characteristics to the overall Mexican
immigrant population so the confidence interval would have to be nearly
identical.
. . . http://www.cis.org/camarota/center-migration-studies-report-falls-short
9. The House Presents a Sprightly Hearing on EB-5
By David North
CIS Immigration Blog, February 12, 2016
The full House Judiciary Committee produced a lively and often
stimulating hearing on the immigrant investor (EB-5) program yesterday.
. . .
TApparently the government has had, for 25 years, the power to raise the
minimum investment, but never used it, even as inflation climbed.
Colucci said that the administration was thinking about it.
Several people said that the half-million/one-million differential was
supposed to channel funds into depressed rural and urban areas, but that
EB-5 promoters had through gerrymandering managed to distort the
program into its current shape. Then in one of those moments we
sometimes see in these hearings, witness Calderon pointed out something
that had been forgotten for decades.
She said that "in footnote six of my paper there is a reference to a
third level of investment in the 1990 act, and it calls for a minimum
stake of $3 million" for an investment in a really prosperous area. She
was arguing for a sliding scale of investment to help depressed areas.
At about this point, witness Gordon said, in response to a question
about how to break the strangle-hold of affluent urban areas, that a new
and vigorous use of differential rewards (with higher ones for
investments in poor areas) could change the current patterns, but only
if the government made that a priority.
Calderon had another interesting observation. There are something like
63,000 visas backlogged in the program because there are more
applications on hand than can be filled within the annual ceiling of
10,000. The backlog has been worsened due to the fact that there usually
are about 2.5 visas per investment, and also by the heavy use (87
percent) of the program by Chinese nationals. The Chinese usage has
bumped into another provision of the law setting overall migration
ceilings on aliens from individual nations.
10. Strategic Objective Is Questionable, but Tactics Are Attractive
By David North
CIS Immigration Blog, February 11, 2016
. . .
Yesterday's Immigration Daily featured a brief article by "Dino
Palangic et. al." to which is attached an Excel spreadsheet that
enables immigration attorneys use eye-catching graphics to support their
petitions for either nonimmigrant treaty investors (E-2) or immigrant
investors (EB-5).
11. What Money Can and Can't Buy in Our Immigration System
By David North
CIS Immigration Blog, February 10, 2016
. . .
E visas are nonimmigrant ones and do not, in and of themselves, lead to a green card.
As an aside, my caller said that one of the reasons why there are so
many small Korean retail establishments is that a migrant with $100,000
to $200,000 can buy a retail establishment and thus qualify for an E-2
visa. This is another way to buy your way into the country, but not
permanently.
The Treaty Trader (E-1) and Treaty Investor (E-2) programs are worrisome
because they are handled totally by the State Department, which has no
on-the-ground oversight and enforcement mechanism. Further, there are no
statutory minimums for the size of the investments.
. . . http://www.cis.org/north/what-money-can-cant-buy-our-immigration-system
12. Most of the Gains from Immigration Go to Immigrants Themselves – Not to Natives
By Jason Richwine
CIS Immigration Blog, February 10, 2016
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal featured a reasonably balanced
look at the economic effects of Arizona's crackdown on illegal
immigrants. The state has enjoyed a 40 percent decline in its illegal
population since it mandated E-Verify and empowered local police to
check immigration status during traffic stops. (Because Arizona's
decline is larger than in surrounding states, we may plausibly attribute
it to the new policies.) The Journal points out that fewer illegal
immigrants has meant less overall economic output for Arizona, but also
higher wages in some sectors and less of a financial strain on schools
and hospitals.
Sorting through these different effects can be tricky, and it tripped up
even Kevin Drum, a sharp-minded liberal blogger for Mother Jones.
Reacting to the Journal piece, Drum noted that Arizona's annual GDP is
$6 billion lower because of the new policies, whereas schools and
hospitals are saving only $410 million. "Arizona is paying a high price
for cracking down on illegal immigration," Drum concluded.
But Drum seems to assume that the benefits of a higher GDP accrue to
Arizonans. As CIS's Steven Camarota pointed out in congressional
testimony, gains in GDP and gains to the native-born are very different
things. Most GDP gains from immigration are captured by the immigrants
themselves.
. . . http://www.cis.org/cis/most-gains-immigration-go-immigrants-themselves-%E2%80%93-not-natives
13. The Ideological Divide on Immigration: Prevention vs. Protection
By Jerry Kammer
CIS Immigration Blog, February 7, 2016
. . .
South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy, the immigration subcommittee
chairman, charged the Obama administration with failure to manage the
crisis. He pointed to reports that migrants had told Border Patrol
agents they came north because they had heard that if they made it
across the border they would be allowed to stay in the country.
"In other words, no adequate steps have been taken to halt the surge or
discourage aliens from attempting to enter the United States," Gowdy
said. "We must at some point send a clear message to potential unlawful
immigrants" that they will not be allowed to stay in the United States.
In response to Gowdy's call for tough-minded resolve, Michigan Democrat
John Conyers called for big-hearted compassion. Said Conyers: "People
need to live free from an endless cycle of violence and persecution. ...
We must address the root causes of the hemisphere crisis. ... We have a
moral as well as a legal obligation to provide asylum seekers the
opportunity to apply for humanitarian protection."
Thirty years ago Democrats and Republicans managed to bridge the much
narrower ideological divide of that era. Congress passed and President
Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, calling it a
solution to illegal immigration. IRCA was built on a hard-won compromise
that promised to combine protection in the form of amnesty with
prevention in the form of worksite enforcement.
. . . http://www.cis.org/kammer/ideological-divide-prevention-vs-protection
14. Attention Syrian Refugees: U.S. Is Looking into Your Facebook Accounts
By Nayla Rush
CIS Immigration Blog, February 12, 2016
. . .
Based on the following excerpts from the witness statements, here's the
deal. The U.S. government is going to hire more people, spend more
money, deploy more resources to vet more and more immigrants, asylum
seekers, and refugees (unaccompanied minors from Central America have
just been added to the list of people we "need" to bring in). And this,
despite the fact that the system is already backlogged, staff is
overwhelmed, and the budget is tight. As usual, it is the American
citizen and the legal immigrant who will pick up the tab in order to
keep up with this administration's overseas humanitarian enthusiasms.
. . . http://www.cis.org/rush/attention-syrian-refugees-us-looking-your-facebook-accounts
15. Democrats Get Immigration Wrong, Again
By Kausha Luna
CIS Immigration Blog, February 12, 2016
Last night, the Democratic debate in Milwaukee became the latest example
of the ill-informed immigration narrative propagated in the United
States and the lack of interest in enforcement of immigration law.
During the debate Sen. Bernie Sanders went after Hillary Clinton's vague
support for deporting some Central Americans, claiming she was willing
to deport "people who were fleeing drug violence and cartel violence,"
making an explicit reference to Honduras. Yet, violence is not the
principal reason Honduran are choosing to migrate.
. . . http://www.cis.org/luna/democrats-get-immigration-issue-wrong-again
16. Survey Shows Main Cause of Honduran Emigration Is Economics, Not Violence
By Kausha Luna
CIS Immigration Blog, February 9, 2016
. . .
Regarding migration, the survey confirmed the economic crisis in
Honduras as the main cause for migration. Of the respondents that had a
family member who had migrated in the last four years, 77.6 percent did
so due to lack of employment and a search for better opportunities.
Meanwhile, 16.9 percent migrated due to violence and insecurity. In
comparison, the 2014 ERIC-SJ survey showed that 82.5 percent migrated
for the former causes and 11 percent migrated for the latter. So while
violence and insecurity have grown in importance among causes for
migration, they continue to lag far behind economic factors as the
primary cause.
Homicide rates in Honduras have been decreasing since 2012.
However, the Obama administration's narrative insists that Central
Americans are fleeing violence and as such should be welcomed into the
United States with open arms as "refugees." This narrative ignores the
economy as the primary push factor for migration, as well as the pull of
incentives created by the Obama administration in its refusal to
enforce immigration laws.
. . . Return to Top
********
********
17. The Next Administration's Immigration Crisis
By Michael Cutler
FrontPagMag.com, February 8, 2016
. . .
While the politicians downplay the actual number of likely illegal
aliens they also never mention that if legalized, millions of illegal
aliens would have the right to immediately bring in their spouses and
minor children. Think of how many millions of additional aliens would
suddenly be admitted into the United States with lawful status- flooding
our educational and healthcare systems.
We should be concerned about the growing national debt. However, when
was the last time you heard anyone on any of the news programs talk
about the fact that each year more than $200 billion is wired out of the
U.S. by foreign workers- both legally and illegally working in the
United States?
. . . http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261725/next-administrations-immigration-crisis-michael-cutler
18. How to Fix Illegal Immigration in Five Steps Without Building a Wall
But we should build some walls too
By Kevin D. Williamson
National Review Online, February 9, 2016
. . .
No, not the question of immigration — illegal immigration.
There’s a temptation to bundle those together, because we have problems
with our legal immigration regime, too, but the more tightly we tie them
together, the more closely we bind ourselves to “solutions” that
aren’t. With illegal immigration, we won’t get 100 percent of the way
there with five reforms, but we might get 92 percent of the way there.
One: Enact a law that does one thing: prohibit people
who have entered the United States illegally from applying for
citizenship — even if their current status is legal. If you ever have
entered the United States illegally, you don’t ever become a citizen.
Two: Enact a law that does one thing: prohibit people
who have entered the United States illegally from applying for a work
permit — even if their current status is legal. If you ever have entered
the United Sates illegally, you don’t ever get a work permit.
That’s your firewall against amnesty. Vote against those laws, and
you’re voting for amnesty; vote to repeal them down the line, you’re
voting for amnesty. This creates good political incentives in Washington
and removes bad incentives among those who come here illegally
expecting that their status eventually will be made legal.
. . . http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431012/fixing-illegal-immigration-five-steps
19. U.S. Election Comm. Quietly Lets States Verify U.S. Citizenship
Judicial Watch Corruption Chronicles, February 12, 2016
. . .
Nevertheless, election officials in some states have confirmed that
requiring ID is not enough to prevent fraud. American citizenship,
mandatory to vote in U.S. elections at every level, must also be
verified. But first states must get approval from the feds, specifically
the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The bipartisan
commission is tasked with assuring that elections are administered in
accordance with federal laws. This includes accrediting voting system
test labs, certifying voting equipment and keeping a national mail voter
registration form.
For years the EAC has rejected requests from several states to allow the
citizenship verification of its registered voters. Judicial Watch has
been involved in several of the cases and years ago filed documents with
the EAC in support of efforts by Arizona, Kansas and Georgia to require
voter registration applicants to provide proof of citizenship. In its
filing with the EAC Judicial Watch writes that under Section 8 of the
National Voter Registration ACT (NVRA), states are under a federal
obligation to assure that non-citizens neither register nor vote. A
failure to allow states to require such information would undermine
Americans’ confidence that their elections are being conducted fairly
and honestly, and would thwart states’ ability to comply with the
election integrity obligations imposed by federal law.
. . .
In the last few weeks, however, the EAC has quietly reversed itself by
approving the petition of three states—Kansas, Georgia and Alabama—to
add a citizenship requirement to their voter registration forms. The
letters, signed by the EAC’s new executive director, Brian D. Newby,
were issued on January 29, 2016. They can be viewed here. The about-face
opens the door for other states seeking to preserve the integrity of
elections by requiring evidence of voter eligibility before ballots are
cast.
. . . http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/02/u-s-election-comm-quietly-lets-states-verify-u-s-citizenship/
20. Unaccompanied Alien Children Charged in Execution-Style Murder, Media Calls Them “Baby-Faced Boys”
Judicial Watch Corruption Chronicles, February 11, 2016
It appears that the recent execution-style murder of a Massachusetts man
was committed by two Central American teens that came to the U.S. as
Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) under President Obama’s open border
free-for-all. Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant minors—mostly from
El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras—have entered the country through the
Mexican border since the influx began in the summer of 2014 and the
administration has relocated them nationwide.
News reports indicate that the 17-year-olds charged in the gruesome
Massachusetts killing entered the U.S. recently as UAC’s and both have
ties to MS-13, according to authorities cited by various outlets. They
lived in Everett and one of the teens, Cristian Nunez-Flores, moved to
Massachusetts from his native El Salvador a year and a half ago which is
when the influx of Central American minors began. His parents remain in
El Salvador, according to a local news article. The other gangbanger’s
name is Jose Vasquez Ardon and he too is a recent arrival from Central
America. Prosecutors say the teens, described in a local news article as
“baby-faced boys,” shot a 19-year-old in the head. Both are being held
without bail for obvious reasons.
. . . http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/02/unaccompanied-alien-children-charged-in-execution-style-murder-media-calls-them-baby-faced-boys/
Remember this moment from 2009 when President Obama was trying to
reassure Americans that Obamacare would not benefit illegal immigrants?
"There are also those that claim our reform efforts would insure illegal
immigrants. This too, is false. The reforms I am proposing do not apply
to those who are here illegally," Obama said. "You lie!" South Carolina
Congressman Joe Wilson shouted out.
22. America’s Balkan Values
White liberals and black careerists vigorously reject the MLK ideal of a color-blind society.
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online, February 9, 2016
. . .
So who is deserving of special set-asides? Take the case of
multimillionaire Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who fled Mexico’s
censorship and came to America to establish a lucrative career under the
singular protection of the U.S. Constitution as a self-appointed
advocate against supposed American nativism. Has America been so unkind
to Ramos that his children will have to have special help getting into
college, while the progeny of an out-of-work coal miner in West Virginia
or an Armenian farmer in Chico cannot qualify?
. . . http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431014/race-privilege-america
23. A Day in the Life of Central Americans Crossing Mexico
By Silvio Canto, Jr.
American Thinker, February 12, 2016
. . .
First, many families need to send their young men to the U.S. to send
back money. El Salvador receives about $4 billion in remittances or
"remesas." It's probably the strongest safety net in the country. My
guess is that other countries have similar numbers.
Second, the Obama administration refuses to speak clearly and defend
U.S. sovereignty. Also, we indirectly invite people to come north when
we offer legalization to anyone who crosses over.
The attitude in Central America is simple: get to the U.S., and you are likely to stay.
On one hand, we appreciate a young man who wants to cut our grass and
support his mom back home. At the same time, we shouldn't encourage
people to come with vague enforcement language.
24. Rubio's Immigration Plan Will Only Cause Suffering for Americans
By Mark Thies
Overpasses for America, February 8, 2016
. . .
Equally compelling data are stagnant STEM wages, with increases
averaging a tiny 0.4 percent per year from 2000-2012
(cis.org/no-stem-shortage). In 2013, PBS ran a story called “The Bogus
High-Tech Worker Shortage: How Guest Workers Lower US Wages”. And last
week in his blog, Professor Norm Matloff at University of
California-Davis pointed out that computer science starting salaries
went up a microscopic 0.06 percent last year.
H1-B-visa
But if Rubio has his way, prospects for our STEM students will be
getting substantially worse. That’s because of a bill he is
co-sponsoring in the Senate: S. 153, the Immigration and Innovation
(I-Squared) Act. If passed, S. 153 would be a game changer — a bill that
should scare the heck out of parents paying for a STEM education for
their kids. Let’s look at how I-Squared will make it even harder for
Americans to get good-paying jobs.
Work visas called H-1B visas are granted to foreign workers who have a
bachelor’s or higher degree in a wide range of areas. S. 153 would
increase the number of H-1B visas from 65,000 up to 245,000. Contrary to
popular belief, there are no worker protections to prevent companies
from firing American workers, replacing them with H-1B’s, and even
forcing them to train their replacements (e.g., Disney).
As pointed out in Trump’s on-line immigration plan, 87 percent of current H-1B holders are paid wages in the bottom third.
. . . http://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=24134
25. Hispanic Television's Most Influential Racialist
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMag.com, February 8, 2016
The National Council of La Raza (Spanish for “The Race”) once honored
Ramos with its “Ruben Salazar” award for his positive portrayal of
Latinos. It is fitting indeed that Ramos should have been singled out
for praise by an organization obsessed with promoting open borders,
lawlessness, racial and ethnic division, and perpetual anger against a
nation that is supposedly racist to its core. Those are precisely Jorge
Ramos's obsessions as well.
. . . http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261726/hispanic-televisions-most-influential-racialist-john-perazzo
26. Liberal Race-Baiters Embarrassed on Univision's Al Punto
By Jorge Bonilla
Newsbusters.org, February 9, 2016
. . .
The panel featured Democrat Freddy Balsera, and Republicans Adolfo
Franco and Otto Reich. When you factor Ramos, this adds up to an even
panel.
Balsera dutifully took Ramos' first softball and dished out a steaming
pile of racial vitiation against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, charging both
with being "anti-Hispanic" and "anti-immigrant". The evidence offered
to support that claim is that they both built a base of support beyond
the community (unlike, say, Luis Gutiérrez - whose district consists of
the Puerto Rican neighborhood, the Mexican neighborhood, and the stretch
of interstate that connects the two), the claim that they don't grant
interviews to the network (false), and the charge that Cruz doesn't
speak Spanish (which didn't stop the network from anointing Julián
Castro).
27. On Immigration, Time for the West to be Realistic
By Michael Curtis
American Thinker, February 9, 2016
. . .
Some of these parties are virulent in their opposition to immigration
and their fear of the challenge to Western values. Nevertheless, two
factors are relevant. It is not racist to suggest that, for practical
reasons, reasonable limits be put on those attempting to immigrate.
Considering the millions desiring to leave not only from the Middle
East, but also from Africa, Europe faces the possibility of an enormous
increase in scale and an uncontrollable pressure. That pressure becomes
even more potent since the native population of Europe is aging and
declining.
More important is the perceived threat of Muslim migrants to Western
values and the possibility of social, cultural, and religious conflicts,
and especially Islamist terrorism, they may bring. The question is not
one of discrimination, but of real differences: educational levels,
cultural behavior, and religious and political views.
. . . http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/on_immigration_time_for_the_west_to_be_realistic.html
28. After Hiring 1,000 New DMV Bureaucrats, California Issues 605,000 Licenses to Illegals
By Monica Showalter
Investor's Business Daily, February 10, 2016
. . .
Apparently the biggest reason they didn’t issue all of them this year is
that so many illegals lacked basic literacy skills in any language,
according to the Los Angeles Daily News.
The Daily News reported that the spike in driver’s license applications
didn’t lead to a rise in vehicle registrations or insurance purchasing,
either, as might be expected given the rationale that Gov. Jerry Brown
gave for opening the door to illegals’ driver’s licenses when he signed
AB60 last year.
What the law does do is open the door for vast new benefits for
illegals, something they have not hesitated to take advantage of, given
the failure of the Obama administration to show any will to enforce U.S.
law. A large number have received $750 million in illegal health care
subsidies under ObamaCare, despite the president’s hard-argued selling
point to the public that “those individuals” would not qualify.
It also opens the door to the right to vote. The California DMV
automatically registers to vote anyone who gets a driver’s license, and
it ascertains that eligibility to vote based on statements made by
applicants on an honor system. What’s more, the law Brown signed
explicitly exempts from prosecution anyone who’s cast an illegal vote.
Large numbers of illegals already vote in U.S. elections, and it’s
consequence-free.
. . . http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/after-hiring-1000-new-dmv-bureaucrats-california-issues-605000-licenses-to-illegals/
29. WSJ: Arizona’s Pro-American Immigration Reform Boosts Wages, Productivity, Housing
By Neil Munro
Breitbart.com, February 10, 2016
. . .
All those economic, social and technological benefits emerged from only a
40 percent drop in illegal population caused by the state’s modest
reforms, and despite President Barack Obama’s refusal to seriously
enforce popular federal laws intended to bar illegal migration. Also,
there was no recorded drop in the annual inflow of legal immigrants. The
state reforms only “barred [illegals] from receiving government
benefits, including nonemergency hospital care … drivers’ licenses and …
in-state tuition rates.”
30. Dear Mexico: You Might Wind Up Paying For That Wall After All
By Jazz Shaw
HotAir.com, February 10, 2016
Over the weekend the former president of Mexico took a rather scoffing
tone when he said that Mexico wasn’t going to pay one cent for Donald
Trump’s “stupid wall.” This is a knock we’ve heard from plenty of The
Donald’s critics back here at home as well, coming from Democrats and
Republicans alike. I mean… it’s crazy, right? How could anyone expect
that to happen?
There’s an article this week over at The Last Refuge which might be
worth a look if you’ve got an open mind on the subject. One of the less
commented on aspects of international relations with Mexico is the
volume of cash which Mexicans living in America (including illegal
aliens) send home every year to their families. There’s nothing shocking
about the idea at first glance. People send money home all the time.
But just how much is it?
. . .
Is it possible? Absolutely, assuming you can mount the pressure required
to make it happen. It would be complicated and politically messy, but
such things don’t seem to bother Trump much to begin with. It all comes
down to the idea of directing law enforcement to direct resources and
vigorous attention to impound all remittance payments derived from
illegal wages. And once the word is out on the street that such payments
are being looked at closely, both through electronic transactions and
the purchase of money orders from banks and post offices, the flow might
not be stopped but it would be severely reduced.
. . . http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/10/dear-mexico-you-might-wind-up-paying-for-that-wall-after-all/
31. Prescient Trump – Hidden Report: Mexico Remittances Total More Than Entire Mexican Oil Revenue
By Sundance
The Conservative Treehouse, February 9, 2016
. . .
Yes, you read that correctly. Immigrant remittances received by Mexico
have surpassed Mexico’s $23.4 billion in oil earnings. This means the
government of Mexico is more dependent than ever on the earnings of
maids and gardeners in the U.S. to keep itself afloat. This is the
leverage Donald Trump talks about to pressure Mexico to pay for the
border wall.
. . . http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/09/prescient-trump-hidden-report-mexico-remittances-total-more-than-entire-mexican-oil-revenue/
32. New Jersey Man Slays Child
By Ann Coulter
Human Events Online, February 10, 2016
. . .
Meanwhile, over on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow was agog at the fact that IN
THIS COUNTRY, 66 PERCENT OF GOP VOTERS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH BANNING
MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS.
Her neurotic repetition of the popularity of Trump’s Muslim ban should
be considered an in-kind donation to his campaign. Most people heard it,
and thought: “Is that true? Then I’m definitely switching to Trump.”
Even Muslim immigrants were saying, “I probably won’t commit jihad
myself, but I know some of the Muslims coming definitely will.”
It’s like importing immigrants with Ebola. We feel bad for them, we know
it’s not their fault, but we just can’t let them in. For every 100,000
Muslims we admit, we know that at least a few hundred either plan to
engage in terrorism right away or can be persuaded to engage in
terrorism later. Another 10,000 will send them money or help them hide.
Trump could probably help himself by saying: “Fine. You don’t want a
temporary ban on Muslim immigrants? How about we temporarily suspend all
immigration?” Let’s take a breather while we watch what happens to
Europe.
34. Enforcing Immigration laws Puts Georgia on Right Side of History and Popular Opinion
By D.A. King
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, February 7, 2016
. . .
It is amusing to see the leftist advocates invoke the very dubious
conclusions of the left-leaning Georgia Budget & Policy Institute’s
latest “report” on immigration and the alleged monetary boost to the
Georgia economy. That is if we would only ignore several federal and
state laws and put illegal aliens in line with American citizens and
legal immigrants in our university admittance offices. And also put them
into our workforce to compete with American workers and their already
stagnant wages.
After that, in the never-ending game of political incrementalism, the
next oft-quoted report would no-doubt carefully explain the
mega-benefits to the Georgia economy if only we had officially open
borders and a constant, unregulated influx of immigrants to replace the
workers already struggling to live the American Dream in their own
country.
All concerned should pay attention to the legislative process under the
Gold Dome on the pending Senate Bill 6. It addresses existing state law
to clear up intentionally created confusion on just who is an illegal
alien after President Obama’s dubious executive action on deferred
action on deportation.
The Impact of US Immigration on Democratic and Republican Election Outcomes
By Giovanni Peri, Anna Maria Mayda, and Walter Steingress
VoxEU.org, February 2, 2016
. . .
An important aspect of the political effect of migration, which has
received less attention in the US debate, is that natives' votes too can
be affected by the increase in the share of immigrants, through the
indirect channel described above. When we distinguish between the effect
of naturalised and non-naturalised immigrants, our empirical analysis
shows that this is indeed the case. The impact of immigration on
Republican votes in the House is negative when the share of naturalised
migrants in the voting population increases. Yet, it is positive when
the share of non-citizen migrants increases above a threshold.2 Our
results are consistent with naturalised migrants being less likely to
vote for the Republican Party than native voters, and with native
voters' political preferences moving in favour of the Republican Party
but only at high levels of non-citizen immigrant shares. This second
effect is significant only for quite high shares of (non-citizen)
immigrants (above 0.132). According to CPS data as of 2012, only in six
US states (California, District of Columbia, Nevada, New Jersey, New
York and Texas) was this share sufficiently high to push natives towards
the Republican Party. For the other states, the share of
non-naturalised immigrants in the population was less than 13.2% in 2012
(and it still is) and the corresponding impact on Republican votes of
non-citizen immigrants was null to negative.
. . . http://www.voxeu.org/article/us-immigration-s-electoral-impact-new-evidence
The GOP's Suicidal Immigration Stance
By Jacob Sullum
Townhall.com, February 3, 2016
. . .
On the face of it, the Republican Party is not in a very pro-immigrant
mood. Yet the positions staked out by Cruz and Trump are unpopular even
among Republicans and could prove fatal to a party that needs support
from Hispanic voters to win.
In the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Trump remains
the front-runner nationally, polling at or above 30 percent, and
hostility to immigration is the most prominent theme of his campaign.
The billionaire reality TV star, who has disparaged Mexican immigrants
as criminals, rapists, and drug dealers, promises to end birthright
citizenship, triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
officers, "humanely" deport 11 million unauthorized immigrants, and
build a wall on our southern border at the Mexican government's expense.
Reader comment: Opposing illegal immigration and importation of foreign
"refugees is NOT suicidal !!! In fact, the opposite is what is suicidal.
Trump and other GOP candidates are more in touch with the actual
sentiments of the CITIZENS of USA who clearly want closed borders, and
enforcement of immigration laws already on the books !!! Even legal
Hispanic immigrants want an end to Illegals coming into this country and
undercutting them and taking their jobs !!!! And black Americans,
likewise resent jobs that they could have, being farmed out to illegals
!!!
This Is The Jeff Sessions Election and the GOP is Just Along for the Ride
By Lauren Fox
Talking Points Memo, February 1, 2016
. . .
"Ted Cruz was with me, Steve King, Mike Lee and others who were opposed
to this bill. Don't let anyone tell you differently," Sessions said,
according to a report from al.com.
The truth of the matter is that if Sessions were to endorse Trump over
Cruz or Cruz over Trump, it might actually have an impact on the
first-in-the-nation presidential contest. Earlier this week a key
Sessions aide, Stephen Miller, left the senator's office to join the
Trump campaign.
For now, however, Sessions says, he's just there to be helpful. He's not endorsing anyone.
"I don't know if I will ever endorse anybody, but I do believe that a
candidate who can effectively understand and articulate the American
people's concerns on immigration and on trade can win this election,"
Sessions said. "Everybody is for the economy, everybody is for GDP,
everybody is for more education, everybody is for more highways. How do
you distinguish yourself?"
House Appropriations Boss Initiates Crackdown on Sanctuaries
By Jessica Vaughan
CIS Immigration Blog, February 1, 2016
. . .
Culberson's letter outlines several steps he expects the Justice Department to take:
* Work with sanctuary jurisdictions to change their policies, and if
they do not, take legal action to compel their compliance with federal
law;
* Beginning this year, amend the grant application forms for the
Byrne/Justice Assistance Grants (JAG), Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) grants, and State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP) reimbursement program to require agencies seeking these funds to
swear that they do not have policies that violate Section 1373; and
* Deny funding to any non-compliant sanctuary jurisdictions.
In addition, he asks the attorney general to look at whether
jurisdictions that release criminal aliens sought by ICE are in
violation of 8 USC 1324, the federal felony statute that prohibits
anyone from shielding illegal aliens from detection. After all, these
jurisdictions have been notified in writing by the detainers (federal
Form I-247) that the aliens' identities and status have been confirmed
by biometric fingerprint matching, and that federal agents wish to take
custody of the aliens, and/or to be notified of the date, time, and
place of release — so the sanctuaries are knowingly releasing deportable
aliens sought by ICE. He said that he will consider applying this
section of the law next year to block funding to jurisdictions that
release criminal aliens sought by ICE. This action could affect the
hundreds of agencies that fail to comply with or accept ICE detainers,
for example.
. . .
http://www.cis.org/vaughan/house-appropriations-sanctuaries
It’s
ironic that some of the illegal immigrant minors that the Obama
administration claims to have rescued from “persistent violence in
Central America” have been placed in abusive homes by the U.S.
government. Some have even been forced to become prostitutes or personal
slaves, according to a scathing Senate investigation that’s ignited
bipartisan fury.
A
Customs and Border Protection vehicle patrols on the Texas border near
the Rio Grande, Thursday, July 24, 2014, in Mission, Texas. Texas is
spending $1.3 million a week for a bigger DPS presence along the border.
Gov. Greg Abbott and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar,
a Laredo Democrat, pressed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on
Monday to explain why the agency plans to reduce its aerial surveillance
on the Texas-Mexico border. In a letter
to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, the lawmakers said the cut to a requested
3,850 hours of aerial detection and monitoring in 2016 amounts to 50
percent less coverage than recent years. “Given
the recent surge of migrants from Central America and Cuba along the
southern border, we believe DHS should request more surveillance and
security resources, not fewer,” Abbott and Cuellar wrote in a letter.
The pair also reminded Johnson that in September, Abbott’s office asked the DHS for more aerial resources and U.S. Border Patrol agents but that the request was never acknowledged.
A DHS spokesperson said the agency would respond "directly" to the governor and the congressman.
Monday’s
request comes as CBP is reporting a new surge in the number of
undocumented immigrants crossing the Rio Grande. From October to
December of 2015, about 10,560 unaccompanied minors entered Texas
illegally through the Rio Grande Valley sector of the U.S. Border
Patrol. That marks a 115 percent increase over the same time frame in
2014. The amount of family units, defined as at least one child and
adult guardian or parent, has increased by 170 percent to 14,336 in the
Rio Grande Valley.
The El Paso sector also saw 1,030 unaccompanied minors, an increase of almost 300 percent. In
Monday’s letter, the pair also requested a detailed breakdown of how
the DHS determined the reduction in aerial surveillance was warranted
and information on how staffing and operation levels would be affected.
While
Abbott has spoken extensively about illegal immigration from Mexico and
Central America, the letter marked the first time Abbott has
referenced a recent surge of Cubans coming into Texas.
Abbott visited
the island nation last year to explore expanding trade between Cuba and
Texas. During that trip, he spoke about the current trade embargo but
not the migrant issue.
During the 2015 fiscal year, about 28,400
Cubans entered Texas through U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Laredo
field office, which extends from Del Rio to Brownsville. That’s
compared to about 15,600 in 2014.
The surge came after the Obama
administration announced in 2014 its plans to re-establish ties with
Cuba, leaving many Cubans fearing they will lose a special designation
that allows them to apply for legal residency status, or a “green card,”
after living in the country for a year. Cuellar and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, have called for the repeal of that designation.
Today
the chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee in charge of
funding the Department of Justice, John Culberson (R-Texas), put the
Obama administration on notice that it must take steps to rein in
sanctuary jurisdictions or risk problems getting approval for its own
budget requests. In addition, Culberson announced that he will begin
requiring local jurisdictions to follow federal law and stop
obstructing communication with immigration agencies as a condition for
receiving certain federal law enforcement funding.
BLOG:
LIKE ALL OF OBAMA'S CABINET, ONE MUST FIRST BE CONNECTED TO THE
BANKSTER SECTOR AND SECONDLY BE AN ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS, SABOTAGE
E-VERIFY AND PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF LA RAZA ABOVE LEGALS. THAT IS
EXACTLY WHAT LORETTA LYNCH HAS AND WILL DO.
In a sternly worded letter
to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Culberson said that he has a
responsibility to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies
are following federal law before they can get federal grants. He said
that sanctuary policies restricting communication between local and
federal officials are a clear violation of Section 1373
of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Among the jurisdictions that
have imposed such policies are San Francisco, Cook County, Ill., and New
York City. In addition to prohibiting local officers from communicating
with immigration authorities, these jurisdictions bar federal officers
from coming into jails to interview or arrest deportable criminals.
State
and local sanctuary policies obstruct immigration enforcement and
cause the release of criminal aliens back to the streets of American
communities. According to ICE records that the Center obtained in a
FOIA request, in 2014 more than 9,000 criminal aliens that ICE was
seeking to deport were instead released. More than 2,300 of these
criminal aliens went on to commit additional crimes within just a few
months.
The three law enforcement funding programs that
could become off-limits to sanctuaries currently dispense more than $1
billion a year to state and local agencies.
Mr. Culberson contacted the Center shortly after the publication of this information
in July, saying that he had long sought concrete information on the
extent of this problem and that he was determined to use his authority
to address it. The Center has compiled a list of over 300 cities,
counties, and states that have laws, ordinances, regulations,
resolutions, policies, or other practices that protect criminal aliens
from deportation — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from
complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on
detainer acceptance, or otherwise impeding open communication and
information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal
immigration officers. These jurisdictions are noted on a map here.
Culberson's letter outlines several steps he expects the Justice Department to take:
Beginning
this year, amend the grant application forms for the Byrne/Justice
Assistance Grants (JAG), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
grants, and State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)
reimbursement program to require agencies seeking these funds to swear
that they do not have policies that violate Section 1373; and
Work
with sanctuary jurisdictions to change their policies, and if they do
not, take legal action to compel their compliance with federal law;
Deny funding to any non-compliant sanctuary jurisdictions.
In addition, he asks the attorney general to look at whether
jurisdictions that release criminal aliens sought by ICE are in
violation of 8 USC 1324,
the federal felony statute that prohibits anyone from shielding illegal
aliens from detection. After all, these jurisdictions have been
notified in writing by the detainers (federal Form I-247) that the
aliens' identities and status have been confirmed by biometric
fingerprint matching, and that federal agents wish to take custody of
the aliens, and/or to be notified of the date, time, and place of
release — so the sanctuaries are knowingly releasing deportable aliens
sought by ICE. He said that he will consider applying this section of
the law next year to block funding to jurisdictions that release
criminal aliens sought by ICE. This action could affect the hundreds of
agencies that fail to comply with or accept ICE detainers, for example.
Culberson
warned that if the administration stubbornly continues to tolerate
sanctuaries, he will find it hard to look favorably on any spending
requests from DOJ in the coming appropriations season: "I hope the
attorney general will do the right thing here so that I am not
compelled to object to relevant portions of the Department's spending
plan and reprogramming requests. Any refusal by the Department to comply
with these reasonable and timely requests will factor heavily in my
consideration of their 2017 budget requests."
Even
following public outcry over a series of cases of murders committed by
criminal aliens after release by sanctuaries, including the killing of
Kate Steinle in San Francisco, the Obama administration has resisted
calls for action to discourage or punish the jurisdictions that obstruct
immigration enforcement. Instead, it has pressed ahead in implementing
the so-called Priority Enforcement Program, which explicitly allows
sanctuary policies that violate federal law. It's clear that the
administration is more interested in protecting criminal aliens than in
protecting the public from their acts; now we'll see if the Department
of Justice is willing to jeopardize its own funding to spare
sanctuaries from being sanctioned, and if the sanctuaries are willing
to sacrifice federal funding in order to protect criminal aliens.
Surge in Illegal Aliens, 500% Increase in Some U.S. Ports of Entry
Judicial Watch Corruption Chronicles, December 30, 2015
The
agency’s own statistics certainly contradict that, showing that the
southern border region is as porous and vulnerable as ever. Other entry
ports that saw large hikes in Central American illegal immigrants
during the first two months of this fiscal year include Del Rio, Texas
(269%), El Centro, California (216%) and Rio Grande Valley, Texas
(154%). The Border Patrol breaks the stats down by “family unit” and
illegal immigrants under the age of 18, referred to as “Unaccompanied
Alien Children” or UAC. The Rio Grande Valley port of entry topped the
list in both categories with 8,537 family units and 6,465 UACs during
the two-month period. In all, the nation’s nine southern border
crossings saw an average of 173% increase in family units and a 106%
increase in minors during the short period considered.
Some
of the illegal immigrants are Mexican nationals, but the overwhelming
majority comes from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The government
records show that somehow 4,450 family units from El Salvador evaded
our topnotch border security and entered the United States in a period
of only two months. Guatemala and Honduras had 3,934 and 3,203
respectively. Mexico had 538 family units. Of interesting note is that,
during this period, the Border Patrol reports 35,234 apprehensions in
the region of foreigners labeled by the government as “Other Than
Mexican” or OTM. This is a term used by federal authorities to refer to
nationals of countries that represent a terrorist threat to the U.S.
. . . http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/12/surge-in-illegal-aliens-500-increase-in-some-u-s-ports-of-entry/
Dan Golvach, father of Spencer Golvach, at his son's grave in Houston Tuesday, October 20, 2015.
The
Texas Tribune is taking a yearlong look at the issues of border
security and immigration, reporting on the reality and rhetoric around
these topics. Sign up to get story alerts.
HOUSTON — Julie Golvach remembers that something felt “off” the night she lost her only child.
It
was exactly one year ago today, a few minutes before 1 a.m. Standing
in the driveway of her Houston home, waving goodbye to her sister under
a clear winter sky, something didn't feel right. The stars didn’t look
the same.
Golvach tossed and turned in bed for a while but was sound asleep when a knock on the door came at 6 a.m.
“I jumped up and I knew,” she said.
She
stopped by her son’s boyhood bedroom, the one with the window looking
out onto the driveway. He’d slept there a week earlier, the evening
they went to see "American Sniper" together. She slipped past the
picture of him and his best childhood friend on the wall, skirting the
bed with the stuffed toy lamb — a baby shower relic — lying on top.
Out
the window, Golvach saw three people — two uniformed police officers
and a woman wearing a shirt that read “chaplain.” Her chest pounded as
she made her way to the front door and opened it.
“Is it Spencer?” she asked.
The
second those words tumbled out of her mouth, she knew the answer, just
as she had known when she uttered that exact phrase the day he was born,
before anyone told her if the baby was a boy or a girl. She just knew.
It was Spencer. One night off
Spencer
Golvach grew up in the sprawl of northwest Houston, surrounded by
guitars and destined for a career in music, his father’s passion.
When
he turned 16 in 2005 and got his driver’s license, the easygoing
musician started working at a local guitar store in a strip mall not
far from Jersey Village High School, where he excelled in shop class and
anything he could do with his hands.
He had always fiddled with
his dad’s guitars, and he developed a knack for fixing and rebuilding
them at the store. A few years later, when the shop owner announced his
retirement, Spencer decided to buy the Cy-Fair area business.
Spencer
Golvach, at the age of three, pictured with a guitar. Authorities say
Golvach was killed by Victor Reyes, an undocumented immigrant, during a
random shooting spree in January 2015.
With nine
employees and a soft economy, life as an entrepreneur proved tough
sledding. He struggled to turn a profit, and he took a second full-time
job as a receiving lead and forklift operator at a local warehouse.
Even
that wasn’t enough to cover the bills. By early 2015, Spencer was
preparing to move into a smaller — and cheaper — space in the same
shopping mall. He could hardly wait for Saturday, Jan. 31 to arrive, the
day the slimmed-down version of Spencer’s Guitar Shop was set to open.
Between giving guitar lessons, working an 8-to-5 day job, building out
the new store and playing bass in his band — The Dead Revolt — Spencer
needed a break.
“The guy was burning the candle at both ends for a
long time,” recalled Dan Golvach, his father. “He takes one night off,
to go take his girlfriend out for her birthday. That was Jan. 30. And
he drops her off ... and 15 minutes later he pulls up to that red
light.”
Less than a mile from his apartment, Spencer steered into
the left turn lane at 18th Street and Mangum Road and waited for the
green light. The details of what happened next are captured in the
records of two police agencies, more than a dozen news articles and the
unceasing nightmares of Spencer’s parents and loved ones.
An
undocumented Mexican national named Victor Reyes, a native of Reynosa
along the Texas-Mexico border, pulled up next to Spencer's beloved
white Toyota pickup. He pointed a pistol at Spencer’s head and pulled
the trigger.
The bullet went through the passenger side window and into Spencer’s skull, at the top of his right ear.
“I
choose to believe it killed him instantly,” his father said in an
interview months later. “I think he was just there and then it’s like
someone turned the lights off. I don’t think he suffered.”
But the
Golvach family’s suffering — compounded by the feeling that Spencer’s
death could have been prevented — was just beginning.
Houston
police, their report indicates, found 25-year-old Spencer dead in his
truck at 12:56 a.m. — right around the moment Julie Golvach, waving
goodbye to her sister, couldn't shake the feeling that something was
off.
A few hours later, she was phoning her ex-husband to break the news.
“I couldn’t make out what she was saying and I finally just said, ‘is my son dead?’”— Dan Golvach
“She
was just inconsolable,” he recalled. “I couldn’t make out what she was
saying and I finally just said, ‘is my son dead?’ She said, ‘yes.’
Then of course I started. I joined the chorus.”
More than a
thousand people attended Spencer’s memorial service, a tribute to his
fun-loving nature and penchant for making friends across generational,
ethnic and gender lines.
Those who knew Spencer universally
describe him as fun-loving and strikingly calm. After he died, a family
friend ordered up a batch of commemorative rubber bracelets emblazoned
with his laid-back motto: “Chill Don’t Freeze."
A bloody rampage
More
than once since the funeral, Julie Golvach has found herself wishing
that her son’s attacker had gotten to know Spencer. She’s convinced he
never would have pulled the trigger. But the official evidence of the
crime, while scant, suggests Spencer was chosen randomly. And he wasn’t
the only victim.
Police say Reyes shot a man in the face,
wounding him, in the suburban city of Jersey Village minutes before
killing Spencer, and they connected him to at least two more random
shootings shortly thereafter. All told, Reyes shot two dead and wounded
three others before a Harris County Sheriff’s deputy took him down
after a violent shootout, officials say.
John Weston, 67, says
he’s lucky to be alive after encountering Reyes on the Hempstead Highway
near Pinemont, about 10 minutes north of where Spencer had just been
killed. He remembers seeing a big, dark truck driving aggressively
behind him. When he got to the stoplight, it pulled up alongside him.
“All
of a sudden I hear this ungodly noise,” Weston recalled. “I don’t know
if you can imagine how fast your mind works, but I saw a shattered
window and I saw a bullet hole in my window. My mind is thinking, ‘Oh
my goodness, somebody’s shooting at me and this guy at this light.’”
He
pressed his foot to the accelerator to get out of the line of fire,
but not soon enough. He heard the second shot, and its impact felt like
someone “hauled off and hit you upside the head,” he said.
Weston
realized the truck's driver was the gunman. “I saw blood everywhere,”
he said. His hands were covered in it, so he could only manage to
re-dial on his cell phone. He finally reached his wife, who told him to
go to the nearest toll booth. An ambulance was called. Doctors found
that a bullet had entered his left cheek and stuck in the other side of
his mouth.
A year later, after reconstructive surgery to replace a
badly shattered jaw, his mouth remains completely numb below the
tongue. With his health woes and lost time at work, he’s struggling to
keep his printing business afloat.
“Everything I do now is a
little more difficult, but considering I’m here talking, I’m blessed to
be here,” Weston said. “It’s scarred me forever. I don’t break down
and cry, but I think about it all the time.”
Had Reyes been a
homegrown criminal, the story might have ended in the empty field where
the deputy shot him — chalked up as another random act of violence in a
city and nation all too used to them.
But as word spread about
Reyes’ long criminal record and multiple deportations, the case was
thrust into the volatile debate over illegal immigration and control of
the southern border: first in local news stories, then at the Capitol
in Austin and most recently on the presidential campaign trail — on
a stage in mid-November with GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump in
Beaumont, where Dan Golvach spoke out and held up a poster of Spencer
along with others killed by undocumented immigrants. Gunman's long record According
to the Houston office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Reyes
had been removed from the country four times between 2003 and 2010, but
little is publicly known about what he was doing in Houston prior to
terrorizing its northwest environs — or why he did it. His
criminal and illegal entry records stretch back at least to 2002 when,
at age 18, he was convicted of burglarizing a building in Hidalgo
County, across the border from Reynosa, which he told police was his
place of birth. He spent a month and a half in jail before a state court
sentenced him to three years' probation, ordered him to pay an $850
fine and mandated 120 hours of community service.
Victor
Reyes, shown in 2001 jail mug shot from Hidalgo County. Authorities say
Reyes, an undocumented immigrant, went on a January 2015 shooting
spree in Harris County that killed two and wounded three.
A
year later, he was back in the Hidalgo County Jail for breaking a beer
bottle over a man’s head at the Tejano Saloon in Pharr. He was sent
back to Mexico after serving about a month in the local jail, but he
came back. By then, his previous probation had been revoked, and he
served several months in a state jail in Raymondville. Deported
again on Jan. 20, 2004, Reyes was caught trying to cross the border the
next day, triggering a 90-day sentence in federal prison and yet
another deportation — his third. A
few months later, on Aug. 10, he was caught again, in McAllen, and
received a one-year federal prison sentence for his fourth known illegal
re-entry. His crimes didn’t end there. A few weeks before his prison
release date, Reyes beat up a fellow inmate — described by his lawyer as
a rival gang member — cutting and fracturing his face, according to
federal court records. Two
new assault charges made Reyes eligible for 20 years behind bars.
Despite his history of violence, burglary and repeat illegal crossings,
federal prosecutors offered Reyes a deal: In exchange for a guilty plea
on one of the counts, and in recognition of his “truthful testimony”
and “acceptance of responsibility,” they promised to give him a sentence
“at the lowest end of the applicable guidelines” on a single charge,
court papers show. Under the plea bargain, Reyes' sentence was 63
months, a quarter of the maximum he faced under the two counts. That’s
a few more spoonfuls of salt in the wound for Dan and Julie Golvach.
Had Reyes been given even half of his possible sentence on the two
assault counts, he would have been in prison instead of at that traffic
light killing their son.
“The people who agreed to this
deal need to be held accountable,” Julie Golvach said. “The result was
the horrific murder of my son.”
The prosecutor who signed the plea
agreement, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tim Hammer, declined to talk about
the case, referring questions to U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman
Angela Dodge in Houston.
Dodge sent The Texas Tribune a
boilerplate description of plea deals, saying they “ensure a resolution
of the case and that someone is convicted of the crime(s) we believe
they committed without going through the time and expense of a trial,”
while providing “justice for all.” She declined to say whether
prosecutors took Reyes' previous crimes into account, or if they
frequently offer plea deals to convicted criminals who commit additional
crimes behind bars.
It’s another official secret in a case with no shortage of them. Family still seeking answers
The
Houston Police Department, using its own discretion under the Public
Information Act, blocked release of all but a few details on the
Golvach and Weston shootings. The department cited a provision allowing
it to withhold criminal records absent a final disposition, such as a
conviction or deferred adjudication. Since Reyes is dead and the city’s
case is otherwise closed, that means Houston police likely can withhold
the information indefinitely.
The Harris County Sheriff’s Office
declined to release its investigative files, but for an entirely
different reason: After every officer-involved shooting — in this case,
a deputy ended Reyes’ deadly rampage — the Harris County district
attorney’s office presents the case to a grand jury even if no one
complains. That happened last week, just days before the one-year
anniversary of the shooting spree.
The federal government holds
onto its files with a tight grip, too, citing the 1974 U.S. Privacy
Act. The act covers only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents,
but Immigration and Customs Enforcement has decreed that its
protections apply to federal immigration detention records, even those
related to undocumented immigrants convicted of horrific crimes. The
agency voluntarily released a narrative of its multiple encounters with
Reyes, but the Tribune has not yet heard back from ICE or U.S.
Citizenship & Immigration Services on its written request for his
entire immigration file.
The
secrecy across local and federal agencies that came into contact with
Reyes confounded and frustrated the people touched by his violence.
Weston said his wife became “very disillusioned” about their quest for
even the simplest answers.
Dan
Golvach, father of Spencer Golvach, in Houston Tuesday, October 20,
2015 at the intersection where his son was killed by an undocumented
immigrant in January.
“I mean, we asked them, ‘Who
was the guy?’” Weston said. “We had to fill out paperwork and all that
kind of stuff, but we never got any satisfactory answer. It was almost
like it was top secret information.”
Hoping to break through the
bureaucratic walls and get some answers about who killed their son and
why, the Golvaches eventually hired a former investigative reporter,
ex-KTRK-TV newsman Wayne Dolcefino. In a letter last year to
then-Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia, Dolcefino said the sheriff’s
office was “doing a disservice to this crime victim by not responding
to this request in a proper manner.” The local investigative files
remained sealed as of late last week, but the Harris County Sheriff's
Office asked the Tribune to resubmit its request for the records and
promised a quick turnaround.
Even with new information beginning
to trickle out, the victims and their families still don't know where
Reyes lived or if he had a job, who owned the truck he was driving that
night or — least of all — the motive for his deadly rampage.
According to Harris County Assistant District Attorney Heyward Carter, some elements of the senseless crime may never be known.
Carter,
who handled a single aspect of the case — the officer-involved
shooting — was able to speak about the case for the first time last
week. He revealed that Reyes was "extremely intoxicated" and had a
"significant amount of cocaine" in his system. He also identified the
weapon, a .380 caliber pistol, that he said was legally purchased at
one point, but authorities haven't determined how a convicted felon and
undocumented immigrant, barred from buying or possessing firearms,
obtained it.
“We live in an age of mass shootings, and even though this one didn’t get a whole lot of publicity, that’s what this is."
— Heyward Carter, Harris County Assistant District Attorney
Carter
also provided details about the actions of the Harris County deputy
sheriff, Javier Rojas, who finally put an end to the deadly rampage. By
chance, Rojas was patrolling the area and heard shots being fired. He
saw the truck of Reyes' final victim, identified by police as Juan
Garcia, in obvious distress, weaving randomly at an intersection.
Garcia later died from his wounds, and a woman in the car with him was
slightly injured from the broken glass.
Rojas chased after Reyes,
who crashed his truck through a barrier at the end of a dead end street
and went another 200 yards or so into an empty field. Rojas continued
the pursuit on foot and found Reyes crouching behind the truck. He
ordered the suspect to drop his weapon but Reyes stood and fired at the
officer instead. Rojas returned fire and struck him in the chest. When
authorities photographed the body his hand was still gripping the
pistol "with his finger on the trigger," Carter said.
In terms of
a motive, authorities can only speculate based on a conversation Reyes
had with a supposed girlfriend about three hours before the shooting
spree began. He wanted her to go out to a bar or nightclub with him,
and she turned him down. Authorities speculate he may have been taking
out his rage on couples: It's possible he saw Spencer Golvach dropping
off his girlfriend shortly before shooting him at the red light and
then targeted Garcia after seeing he had a woman in his vehicle.
But it's just a theory.
“We
live in an age of mass shootings, and even though this one didn’t get a
whole lot of publicity, that’s what this is," Carter said. "I don’t
understand why he was doing it.”
Carter did confirm what the families had learned from detectives
in the immediate aftermath of the shootings: Reyes still had plenty of
ammunition left in his truck — suggesting that he was planning a more
extensive shooting spree. There were at least 20 live rounds left in the
vehicle, and he appeared to be reloading while driving near the scene
of his final attack.
“Had this officer not been there just
coincidentally ... there were plenty of roads for him to go down. He
had plenty of ammo, and it didn't seem like he was stopping, that's for
sure," Carter said. "As horrible as this situation was, it could have
been way worse.”
After the facts were presented to grand jury last
Wednesday, the panel decided not to proceed with any further action
related to the incident. The Golvach family calls Rojas' response
heroic. "Why was he allowed to be here?" Julie
Golvach burst out into tears again last week after hearing for the
first time some of the details of the crime that took her son's life. “I
really feel I deserve to know what brought them together at that point
in time, what caused him to shoot my son,” she said. “I think we
deserve to know why he was even here — why he was allowed to be here.”
It’s
a common refrain among those who have been victimized by people in the
country illegally. They weren’t supposed to be here in the first
place, and the government's inability to keep them from crossing the
southern border after they’ve been deported — and prevent them from
committing crimes — provokes a unique brand of helplessness and outrage.
Even
Weston, a lifelong Democrat who attended both of Barack Obama’s
inaugurations and favors allowing otherwise law-abiding immigrants into
the United States to work and seek a better life, said he had to fight
the urge to call Donald Trump and tell him he was “dead-on” with his
focus on foreigners who commit crimes here.
“Somebody’s got to do
something about it,” he said. In the same breath, Weston emphasized
that he doesn’t support Trump for president and said keeping dangerous
felons from crossing the border or entering the vast illegal workforce
defied simplistic solutions.
“If there’s some way to filter out
the ones that intend to harm people, I would be in support of that,” he
said. “It may prevent something like this from happening to somebody
else.”
Dan Golvach is more blunt and outspoken. A few weeks after
his son’s murder, he was at the state Capitol testifying in favor of
2015 state legislation — ultimately doomed — that would have prohibited
local law enforcement authorities in Texas from adopting “sanctuary”
policies that keep police out of immigration matters.
Then late
last year, he appeared with Trump at a campaign rally in Beaumont,
saying his son died as “the result of politically correct politics” —
namely, bipartisan policies that he believes go too easy on
undocumented immigrants and the people who hire them.
“When you
lose the thing you love the most, you’re not that worried about being
PC,” Golvach said in an interview. “If you’re going to come here, you
need to do it legally on our terms, not your terms.”
Golvach
readily admits that anger over his son’s killing sometimes hits “toxic”
levels. He says he’s still haunted by the image of Spencer in a
hastily chosen coffin, still upset he was killed right next to the
stadium where he used to watch baseball as a kid, still mad as hell that
the government won’t cough up the records they have on his son’s
killer.
It would be worse without all the good memories of his
son, and without the certainty that if Spencer were alive today he
would say to him: “chill don’t freeze.”
“He’d tell me, ‘Don’t
have a heart attack. You know, clear your mind and keep it cool,'” he
said. “He would tell me not to hate anybody.”
Concrete Evidence of the Continuing Plunge in Both Civil and Criminal Immigration Enforcement
By Dan Cadman
CIS Immigration Blog, January 23, 2016
Two
recent reports from Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse (TRAC) reflect the continued erosion of immigration
enforcement under the Obama administration.
On January
20, TRAC reported that criminal prosecution for immigration offenses
fell 22.3 percent from November 2014 to November 2015, and more than 36
percent over the course of five years, excluding magistrate court
(which deals exclusively with petty offenses).
The
following day, TRAC announced that "ICE [Immigration and Customs
Enforcement] Detainer Use Stabilizes Under Priority Enforcement
Program". The Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) is the replacement to
the Secure Communities Program mandated by Homeland Security Security
Jeh Johnson as a part of the president's "executive actions" on
immigration. It significantly restricts the ability of immigration
agents to file detainers against aliens arrested by police on criminal
charges.
I have no idea what TRAC means by
"stabilizes". A quick look at Figure 1a of their report shows a more
accurate state of affairs, if one considers the number of detainers
being filed over the course of five years, from a high in April 2011,
when Secure Communities became fully effective nationwide and kicked
into high gear, versus October 2015. I would use other phrases:
"plummeted" or "Dropped like a stone". Or, as my colleague Jessica
Vaughan has noted, particularly in relation to detainers filed at
county jails, where the lion's share of criminals of any stripes are
held after being booked for offenses small and large: "a stunning free
fall".