MORE PROFITS FOR GLOBALIST BILLIONAIRES OR HOMELAND SECURITY? ......
"American elites continue focusing on a global order while ignoring the decline of the United States. A broken America will be unable to meet any geopolitical threats abroad. Any national security strategy that does not begin with securing our own national security at home will be doomed to fail." DANIEL GREENFIELD
New York Times bestselling author and populist conservative commentator Ann Coulter says President Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Kirstjen Nielsen, is “an open borders zealot.”
In a radio interview, Coulter slammed Trump’s appointment of Nielsen — whom Breitbart News has been vetting — as a loss for the president’s pro-American immigration reform agenda, which includes construction of a border wall, mandatory E-Verify to keep illegal aliens out of the U.S. workforce, and a reduction in legal immigration to raise Americans’ wages.
“Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security is an open borders zealot,” Coulter told radio host Mark Simone. “Is against the wall… this Kirstjen Nielsen her name is.”
“This is the head of Homeland Security and she’s against, let’s see, oh yeah homeland security,” Coulter continued.
Coulter also took to Twitter, comparing Nielsen to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), an adamant supporter of cheap foreign labor and open borders.
During Nielsen’s confirmation hearing, she was praised by former Bush officials Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, both of whom repeatedly attempted to push amnesty for illegal aliens while working under the previous Republican administration. Ridge and Chertoff also went on to join the failed ‘Never Trump’ movement.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the face of the 2013 amnesty for illegal aliens, also praised Nielsen.
Nielsen, during the hearing, committed her support to an amnesty for nearly 800,000 illegal aliens shielded from deportation under the Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, as Breitbart News reported.
“I believe that we must and we owe it to them to find a permanent solution,” she said of passing a DACA amnesty that could potentially lead to a chain migration of 9.9 million to 19 million foreign nationals pouring into the U.S. legally. “It’s no way to expect anyone to live a month or two months at a time,” said Nielsen, even though the DACA work-permits each last for two years.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
“Third-generation Latinos are more often disconnected — that is, they neither attend school nor find employment.” Kay S. Hymowitz
THE ONCE GOLDEN STATE of CALIFORNA, NOW A LA RAZA MEX
WELFARE STATE, IS No. 48 OF 50 STATES IN LOWER EDUCATION!
MEXICANS LOATHE LITERACY AND ENGLISH… SUCH APES THE
“Mexicans abhor education. In their country, illiteracy dominates. As they arrive in our country, only 9.6 percent of fourth generation Mexicans earn a high school diploma.Mexico does not promote educational values. This makes them the least educated of any Americans or immigrants. The rate of illiteracy in Mexico stands at 63 percent." FROSTY WOOLDRIDGE
ILLEGALS & WELFARE
70% OF ILLEGALS GET WELFARE!
Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.
“According to the Centers for Immigration Studies, April '11, at least 70% of Mexican illegal alien families receive some type of welfare in the US!!! cis.org”
So when cities across the country declare that they will NOT be sanctuary, guess where ALL the illegals, criminals, gang members fleeing ICE will go???? straight to your welcoming city. So ironically the people fighting for sanctuary city status, may have an unprecedented crime wave to deal with along with the additional expense.
$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English.
$22 billion is spent on (AFDC) welfare to illegal aliens each year.
$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as (SNAP) food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. Does not include local jails and State Prisons.
2012 illegal aliens sent home $62 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. This is why Mexico is getting involved in our politics.
$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.
POPULATION EXPLOSION FOR GRINGO WELFARE
THE HORDES OF ILLEGALS KEEP COMING…. Despite America’s jobs, housing and Mexican crime tidal wave.
Immigrant children from El Salvador and Guatemala who entered the country illegally board a bus after they were released from a family detention center in San Antonio, Texas on July 7, 2015. (Eric Gay / Associated Press)
Kay S. Hymowitz
Articles about America’s high levels of child poverty are a media evergreen. Here’s a typical entry, courtesy of the New York Times’s Eduardo Porter: “The percentage of children who are poor is more than three times as high in the United States as it is in Norway or the Netherlands. America has a larger proportion of poor children than Russia.” That’s right: Russia.
Outrageous as they seem, the assertions are true — at least in the sense that they line up with official statistics. Comparisons of the sort that Porter makes, though, should be accompanied by an asterisk pointing to a very American reality. Before Europe’s recent migration crisis, the United States was the only developed country to routinely import millions of very poor, low-skilled families, from some of the most destitute places on Earth — especially from undeveloped areas of Latin America — into its communities, schools and hospitals. Let’s just say that Russia doesn’t care to do this — and, until recently, Norway and the Netherlands didn’t, either.
Pundits prefer silence on the relationship between America’s immigration system and poverty, and it’s easy to see why. The subject pushes us into the sort of wrenching trade-offs that politicians and advocates prefer to avoid. Here’s the problem in a nutshell: You can allow mass low-skilled immigration, which many consider humane. But if you do, it becomes a lot harder to pursue the equally humane goal of reducing child poverty in this country.
In 1964, the federal government settled on a standard definition of poverty: an annual income less than three times the amount required to feed a family (size dependent) over that period of time. Back then, close to 23% of American kids were poor. Today, about 18% of kids are below the poverty line, amounting to 13,250,000 children.
At first, immigration did not affect child-poverty figures. The 1924 Immigration Act sharply reduced the number of immigrants from poorer Eastern European and southern countries, and it altogether banned Asians. The relatively small number of immigrants settling in the United States tended to be from affluent nations. According to the Migration Policy Institute, in 1970, immigrant children were less likely to be poor than were the children of native-born Americans.
By 1980, the situation had reversed: immigrant kids were now poorer than native-born ones. Why? The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act overturned the 1924 restrictions and made “family preference” a cornerstone of immigration policy. In consequence of that move, as well as large-scale illegal immigration, a growing number of new Americans hailed from less-developed countries. As of 1990, immigrant kids had poverty rates 50% higher than their native counterparts. At the turn of the millennium, more than one-fifth of immigrant children were classified as poor.
Perhaps the most uncomfortable truth about these statistics is that a large majority of America’s poor immigrant children — and, at this point, a large fraction of all its poor children — are Latino.
The United States started collecting separate poverty data on Latinos in 1972. That year, 22.8% of those originally from Spanish-language countries of Latin America were poor. The percentage hasn’t risen dramatically since then; it’s now at 25.6%. But because the Latino population in America quintupled during those years, these immigrants substantially expanded the nation’s poverty rolls. Latinos are now the largest U.S. immigrant group by far — and the lowest-skilled. Pew estimates that Latinos accounted for more than half the 22-million-person rise in the official poverty numbers between 1972 and 2012.
At the same time, then, that America’s War on Poverty was putting a spotlight on poor children, the immigration system was steadily making the problem worse. Between 1999 and 2008 alone, the United States added 1.8 million children to the poverty total; the Center for Immigration Studies reports that immigrants accounted for 45% of them.
Latino immigration is of course not the only reason that the United States has such troubling child-poverty rates. Other immigrant groups, such as North Africans and Laotians, add to the ranks of the under-18 poor. And even if we were following the immigration quotas set in 1924, the United States would be something of an outlier. Perhaps the nation’s biggest embarrassment is the alarming number of black children living in impoverished homes, about 3.7 million (compared to 5.1 million poor Latino kids).
But immigrant poverty belongs in a different category from black poverty. After all, immigrants voluntarily come to the United States, usually seeking opportunity. These days, they don’t always find it.
Yes, some immigrant groups known for their devotion to their children’s educational attainment (Chinese immigrants come to mind) have a good shot at middle-class stability, even if the parents arrive in America with little skill or education. Researchers, however, have followed several generations of Latinos — again, by far the largest immigrant group — and what they’ve discovered is not encouraging.
Latino immigrants start off OK. Raised in the United States, second-generation Latinos go to college at higher rates than their parents, and they also earn more. Unfortunately, the third generation either stalls or takes what the Urban Institute calls a “U-turn.” Between the second and third generation, Latino high school dropout rates go up and college-going declines. Third-generation Latinos are more often disconnected — that is, they neither attend school nor find employment.
Other affluent countries have lots of immigrants struggling to make it in a postindustrial economy. Those countries have lower child-poverty rates than we do — some much lower. But the background of the immigrants they accept is very different. Canada is probably the best comparison. Like the United States, it’s part of the Anglosphere and is historically multicultural. Unlike the United States, it uses a points system that considers education levels and English ability, among other skills, to determine who gets a visa. The Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project calculates that 30% of American immigrants have less than a high school diploma, while 35% have a college degree or higher. Only 22% of Canadian immigrants lack a high school diploma, while more than 46% have gone to college.
Sweden presents another illuminating case. For a long time, the large majority of Sweden’s immigrants were from Finland, a country with a similar culture and economy. By the 1990s, the immigrant population began to change as refugees arrived from the former Yugoslavia, Iran and Iraq — populations far more likely to be unskilled than immigrants from the European Union. By 2011, Sweden was seeing an explosion in the number of asylum applicants from Syria, Afghanistan and Africa; in 2015 and 2016, there was another spike. Sweden’s percentage of foreign-born has swelled to 17% — higher than the approximately 13% in the United States.
How has Sweden handled its growing diversity? Numbers from earlier this decade suggest that immigrants tend to be poorer than natives and more likely to fall back into poverty if they do surmount it. In fact, Sweden has one of the highest poverty rates among immigrants relative to native-born in the European Union. Most striking, a majority of children living in Sweden classified as poor in 2010 were immigrants.
Outcomes like these suggest that immigration optimists have underestimated the difficulty of integrating the less-educated from undeveloped countries, and their children, into advanced economies. A more honest accounting raises tough questions. Should the United States favor higher-skilled immigration? Or do we accept higher levels of child poverty and lower social mobility as a cost of giving opportunity to people with none? If we accept such costs, does it make sense to compare our child-poverty numbers with those of countries such as Sweden, which have only recently begun to take in large numbers of low-skilled immigrants?
Alternatively, we can fall back on shouting “racism” every time someone expresses concern about our immigration system. Remember Nov. 8, 2016, if you want to know how that will play out.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — There is now a record level of immigrants living in the United States – standing at roughly 44 million people nationwide – who entered the U.S. both illegally and legally from a foreign country.
Research conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies’ Steven Camarota reveals the massive scope of the U.S. immigrant population, which has contributed to keeping American wages stagnant while driving up costs of social services.
Camarota’s research reveals that in 2016, there were between 43 and 45 million immigrants in the U.S., nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000.
Mexico, as noted by Camarota, has the largest group of legal and illegal foreign nationals in the U.S., with 1.1 million immigrants from the country arriving in the U.S. between 2010 and 2016. Mexican nationals make up roughly one in eight new arrivals to the U.S.
Legal and illegal immigrants now make up close to 14 percent of the entire U.S. population, or roughly one out of every eight American residents. Camarota says this is the largest percentage in 106 years.
The largest increases from 2015 to 2016 to immigration to the U.S. have come from the Middle East, the Carribean, Central America, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
The booming foreign-born population is largely due to family-based chain migration, which was established by the 1965 immigration legislation allowing new arrivals to the U.S. to bring their foreign family members, spouses, children, and extended family to the U.S.
For instance, as Breitbart News has reported, on average, for every new legal immigrant from Mexico, the immigrant brings six relatives to the U.S. years later when they obtain U.S. citizenship.
President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, most recently, have called for an end to chain migration, slamming it for its negative impact on American workers and the country’s working-class, who are often forced to compete with new arrivals for blue-collar jobs.
“A merit-based system, by definition, would be safer than a lottery or even extended family-based immigration,” Sessions said during a speech in New York City, New York. “We want the best and the brightest in America. The President’s plan is essential to protecting our national security, while also banning drunk drivers, fraudsters, gang members, and child abusers.”
Harvard University economist George Borjas, an immigration expert, recently said the current family-based chain migration system is “really hard to justify as a rational immigration policy.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Washington, D.C. (October 2, 2017) – A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that fertility rates have declined much more rapidly among immigrants than the native-born. As a result, immigration's modest impact on slowing the aging of America is becoming even smaller. Immigration increases the size of the country's population significantly, but the impact on the overall fertility rate in the country is small because the difference between immigrants and natives is modest.
Dr. Steven Camarota, director of research and author of the report, said, "Many commentators claim that the high immigrant fertility will 'rebuild the demographic pyramid,' but this view is mistaken. Declining immigrant fertility means that the modest impact immigration once had is now even smaller." He continued, "If present trends continue, the Total Fertility Rate of immigrants may even drop below 2.1 in the next few years, the level necessary to replace the existing population."
The birth rate for women in their reproductive years (ages 15-50) declined more than twice as much for immigrants as natives between 2008 and 2015. Between 2008 and 2015 the fertility of immigrant women feel from 76 to 60 births per thousand. In contrast, native fertility declined from 55 births per thousand to 49 births per thousand — a decline of six births per thousand.
Although still higher than that of natives, immigrant fertility has only a small impact on the nation's overall birth rate. The presence of immigrants raises the birth rate for all women in their reproductive years by just two births per thousand (3.6 percent).
Even if the number of immigrant women 15 to 50 doubled along with births to this population, it would still only raise the overall national birth rate for women by 2.5 percent above the current level.
In addition to births per thousand, fertility is often measured using the total fertility rate (TFR). The TFR reports the number of children a woman can be expected to have in her lifetime based on current patterns.
Like the birth rate, the TFR of immigrants has declined more rapidly than the TFR for natives. In 2008, immigrant women had a TFR of 2.75 children; by 2015 it had fallen to 2.16 — a .6-child decline. For natives it declined from 2.07 to 1.75 — a .33-child decline.
The presence of immigrants in the country has only a small impact on the nation's overall TFR. In 2015, immigrants only increased the nation's overall TFR by .08 children (4.3 percent).
Although immigration has only a small impact on overall fertility and aging, it has a significant impact on population size. For example, new immigrants and births to immigrants between 2000 and 2015 added 30.2 million people to the country — equal to 76 percent of U.S. population growth over this time period.
Tancredo: Another Dirty Little Secret About Massive Immigration About to Be Exposed – Hopefully
Are you ever tied up in a traffic jam and start to wonder, “Where are all these people coming from?” Have you tried to go camping only to find out the campgrounds have long since been “filled up?” Have more and more acres in your area that once produced food, now only produce urban heat pads? Has your state had to divert more and more water from agricultural usage to human consumption? And in general, has the population footprint on the environment in your area been enlarged by population growth? Does water run downhill?
Then the answer to the question asked in the first sentence is immigration — both legal and illegal. In fact, according to both the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Pew Hispanic Center, new immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 75 to 80 percent of our annual population growth.
You don’t have to be a tree hugger to recognize that massive population increases have negatively affected the environment. Everything from water scarcity to urban sprawl can be attributed to population increases and, as I said, population increases in the U.S. can almost completely be attributed to immigration. So, beyond the negative impact of massive immigration on housing costs, schools, hospitals, energy, incarceration rates, and the breakdown of assimilation that the left and the media refuse to acknowledge — add environmental impact.
Congress passed a law in 1969 known as NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and it has been used extensively and with a heavy hand to regulate development in almost every area of our economy. A central feature of the law is the provision requiring that any proposed governmental action that affects the environment be examined through public comment and hearings to assure its benefits outweigh any adverse impact on the environment. Federal agencies must conduct “Environmental Impact Assessments” before implementing any new action or program.
Even the Pentagon and every branch of the military has to comply with NEPA in its programs and operations. And yet, since 1970, not one federal agency — not the predecessor to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), nor the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Centers for Disease Control, the Federal Highway Administration, nor the Public Health Service — not a single federal agency has ever complied with the mandates of the NEPA with respect to its immigration-related programs and activities.
There is no secret as to the lack of interest in applying NEPA requirements to immigration. You see, the law requires that BEFORE you undertake a project you must go through an extensive review and that means no new immigration, or very little, until the review can be completed. Holy scare the living heck out of the open borders crowd, Batman!! And then what if the review shows the real damage being done to the environment is substantial (and it would be hard not to)? What would the remedy be? Too horrible for both the “borders mean nothing” crowd or the crony capitalists to contemplate.
Well now, the good news. Finally, in 2017, 48 years after NEPA was enacted, that bipartisan “blind-eye” toward immigration is being challenged.
A coalition of non-profit organizations led by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an affiliate of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), has filed a lawsuit to force federal agencies to follow the requirements of NEPA and examine the impact of mass immigration on the environment. The lawsuit was filed in October of 2016 in federal district court against the Department of Homeland Security, but, if successful, it would lead to changes in many other federal agencies as well.
The 85-page Preliminary Statement filed by nine plaintiffs in the U.S. Federal Court for the District of Southern California opens with this statement of a claim against the federal Homeland Security agency:
Like its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), DHS has turned a blind eye regarding the environmental impacts, including the cumulative impacts, of its actions concerning foreign nationals who enter and settle into the United States pursuant to the agency’s discretionary actions. The resulting environmental impacts from these actions are significant and an analysis of these impacts by DHS is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), see 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq. (2016), and its implementing regulations. But DHS, like INS before it, undertakes no such NEPA review. Accordingly, DHS is acting in contravention of its legal obligations.
The lawsuit was the subject of a September 23, 2017, presentation at the annual meeting of the Writers Workshop in Washington, DC, which can be viewed here.
Full and equitable enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act is 48 years overdue. Citizens who want immigration policy to reflect national priorities and not “global citizenship” should support the new lawsuit and demand the same of our elected officials.
MEXICO CONQUERED AMERICAN BY BREEDING BABIES FOR WELFARE…. LA RAZA DOUBLED U.S. POPULATION AND VOTED TO SURRENDER AMERICAN BORDERS FOR EASY PLUNDERING BY NARCOMEX.
“Through love of having children we're going to take over."
Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets,
militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96
“The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”
US immigration population hits record 60 million, 1-of-5 in nation
Census: Immigration to bust 100-year record, continue surging
A huge boom in immigration, legal and illegal, over the past 16 years has jumped the immigrant population to over 43 million in the United States, according to a new report.
And when their U.S.-born children are added, the number grows to over 60 million, making the immigrant community nearly one-fifth of the nation's population, according to federal statistics reviewed by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Steven Camarota, the Center's director of research and co-author of the report, said, "The enormous number of immigrants already in the country coupled with the settlement of well over a million newcomers each year has a profound impact on American society, including on workers, schools, infrastructure, hospitals and the environment. The nation needs a serious debate about whether continuing this level of immigration makes sense."
Concerns about the explosion of immigration, especially of illegals, helped Donald Trump win the presidency and has prompted his administration to crack down on illegal immigration and refugees.
The new report does not break down the percentage of legal and illegal immigrants in the U.S., although there are an estimated 12 million undocumented aliens in the country.
It found that since 2000, the U.S. immigrant population has increased 8 million and a sizable number came from Mexico and Latin America, the source of most illegal immigrants.
The nation's immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 43.7 million in July 2016, an increase of half a million since 2015, 3.8 million since 2010, and 12.6 million since 2000.
As a share of the U.S. population, immigrants (legal and illegal) comprised 13.5 percent, or one out of eight U.S. residents in 2016, the highest percentage in 106 years. As recently as 1980, just one out of 16 residents was foreign-born.
Between 2010 and 2016, 8.1 million new immigrants settled in the United States. New arrivals are offset by the roughly 300,000 immigrants who return home each year and annual natural mortality of about 300,000 among the existing foreign-born population. As a result, growth in the immigrant population was 3.8 million 2010 to 2016.
In addition to immigrants, there were slightly more than 16.6 million U.S.-born minor children with an immigrant parent in 2016, for a total of 60.4 million immigrants and their children in the country. Immigrants and their minor children now account for nearly one in five U.S. residents.
Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) were by far the largest foreign-born population in the country in 2016. Mexico is the top sending country, with 1.1 million new immigrants arriving from Mexico between 2010 and 2016, or one out of eight new arrivals. However, because of return migration and natural mortality among the existing population, the overall Mexican-born population has not grown in the last six years.
The states with the largest numerical increases in the number of immigrants from 2010 to 2016 were Texas (up 587,889), Florida (up 578,468), California (up 527,234), New York (up 238,503), New Jersey (up 171,504), Massachusetts (up 140,318), Washington (up 134,132), Pennsylvania (up 131,845), Virginia (up 120,050), Maryland (up 118,175), Georgia (up 95,353), Nevada (up 78,341), Arizona (up 78,220), Michigan (up 74,532), Minnesota (up 73,953), and North Carolina (up 70,501).
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at email@example.com
Adios, California A fifth-generation Californian laments his state’s ongoing economic collapse. By Steve Baldwin American Spectator, October 19, 2017 What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs. Liberals claim they more than make that up with taxes paid, but that’s simply not true. It’s not even close. FAIR estimates illegal aliens in California contribute only $1.21 billion in tax revenue, which means they cost California $20.6 billion, or at least $1,800 per household.
Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.
Furthermore, the complexion of illegal aliens has changed with far more on welfare and committing crimes than those who entered the country in the 1980s. Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has testified before a Congressional committee that in 2004, 95% of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens; in 2000, 23% of all Los Angeles County jail inmates were illegal aliens and that in 1995, 60% of Los Angeles’s largest street gang, the 18th Street gang, were illegal aliens. Granted, those statistics are old, but if you talk to any California law enforcement officer, they will tell you it’s much worse today. The problem is that the Brown administration will not release any statewide data on illegal alien crimes. That would be insensitive. And now that California has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” there is little doubt this sends a message south of the border that will further escalate illegal immigration into the state.
Indeed, California goes out of its way to attract illegal aliens. The state has even created government programs that cater exclusively to illegal aliens. For example, the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offices that only process driver licenses for illegal aliens. With over a million illegal aliens now driving in California, the state felt compelled to help them avoid the long lines the rest of us must endure at the DMV. And just recently, the state-funded University of California system announced it will spend $27 million on financial aid for illegal aliens. They’ve even taken out radio spots on stations all along the border, just to make sure other potential illegal border crossers hear about this program. I can’t afford college education for all my four sons, but my taxes will pay for illegals to get a college education.
President Trump has nominated John Kelly’s chief of staff, Kirstjen Nielsen, to be the next Homeland Security secretary, but the nomination has already hit some snags from both sides of the aisle. The most curious aspect of the debate is highlighted in this article from USA Today. They focus on one Q&A session during Nielsen’s confirmation hearings where she was asked about the border wall. Her answer was, to put it mildly, less than inspiring.
Kirstjen Nielsen, an attorney with cyber- and homeland security experience, told senators during her confirmation hearing that the border should be fortified instead with a mix of personnel, technology and physicial fencing.
Her stand mirrors that of former DHS secretary — and her current boss — White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. Nielsen was Kelly’s chief of staff at DHS and followed him to the White House, where she is principal deputy chief of staff.
“The president has stated as have predecessors at DHS certainly something that I share: There is no need for a wall from sea to shining sea,” she said.
I’m not going to pretend that Nielsen is the only person in Washington with questions about the border wall. Far from it, in fact. And I honestly don’t know if the political will exists on the hill (to say nothing of the required resources) to push through a “big, beautiful wall” that runs from sea to shining sea Gulf of Mexico. But that’s not really the point here, is it? Nielsen is being nominated to serve in the cabinet of the President of the United States and she should be entering that office (if confirmed) ready to stand up for the President’s agenda. You may not get everything you want, but you don’t begin a negotiation by ceding ground to the opponent.
It’s equally disappointing to hear so many ostensibly conservative members of the Republican party parroting the language of the Democrats on an issue which should be such a no-brainer in terms of policy. There will be huge challenges involved in building and maintaining a wall of that length. Getting it done in a single presidential term would likely prove impossible even if we had bipartisan consensus on the issue. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Yes, some of the terrain that the border runs through is brutal and construction in those areas will be challenging. But if we seriously want to have a full barrier capable of largely shutting down illegal immigration of all forms, such a wall is needed. As long as there are openings where someone can walk across, criminals will find a way to do it. Working over a number of administrations, the entire border actually could be secured eventually, including the addition of extra personnel, electronic monitoring and the other features Neilsen mentioned. And if you don’t think that a border wall can work, go read what happened in Hungary when they build one.
Rather than focusing all my fire on Neilsen (who is, I am positive, more than qualified otherwise), it’s worth taking a moment to look at the dog and pony show which her confirmation turned into thanks to the Democrats. She’s being considered for a spot in Homeland Security, so questions about the wall are clearly appropriate. But what else did her interrogators want to know about? Her views on climate change.
She is expected to win confirmation easily, though she did provide some answers Wednesday that took some senators aback. For example on climate change, Nielsen declined to say she believes humans caused it.
“I do absolutely believe that the climate is changing,” she said. “I’m not prepared to determine causation.”
Nielsen later pledged that she would review the science.
What exactly does the Secretary of Homeland Security have to do with climate change? Did you also ask her about her views on abortion and the Export-Import Bank? Surely you found time to get her take on the pressing issue of NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem.
Come on, guys. Grill her about matters related to her potential next job, obviously. But all the rest of this window dressing is unrelated and only serves as an opportunity for Democrats to do some grandstanding and create a few headlines. Let’s get on with the actual business at hand, shall we?
Paul Ryan Rebukes 13 GOP Reps Who Urge No-Strings Amnesty Giveaway
Thirteen Republican congressmen lined up on Thursday to support Democrats’ demands that the 2018 budget also include a quick, no-strings amnesty for millions of illegals — but they were quickly slapped down by House Speaker Paul Ryan.
“I think it should be treated separately on its own merits,” Ryan countered in his Thursday press conference. “There is no need to have artificial deadlines,” he said, adding that his deputies are preparing an immigration proposal for consideration by caucus members.
The following Republicans called for the no-strings amnesty, as reported by the McClatchy Agency:
Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)
Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE)
Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA)
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Rep. John Faso (R-NY)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN)
The thirteen stood in agreement with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that Congress should provide an amnesty for at least 690,000 “DACA” illegals who were previously covered by President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Under the Democrats’ Dream Act, amnesty actually would be given to a broader group of three million illegal immigrants below the age of 40.
That Democrats’ act would give millions of illegals quick access to all federal financial aid — including Obamacare — and put them on a fast track to citizenship, after which they could vote for Democratic politicians and also use the chain-migration laws to bring in a legally unlimited number of Democratic-leaning relatives from their home countries. After the 1986 amnesty, newly naturalized Mexicans sponsored an average of six other Mexicans for citizenship, ensuring complete Democratic control of California.
In contrast, pro-American reformers want Congress to cut the huge annual inflow of immigrants, so forcing companies to pay higher wages and to buy productivity-boosting, high-wage machinery. That low-immigration, high-wage policy got New York real-estate developer Donald Trump elected in 2016 because it wins huge support from the public, according to many polls.
Schumer claims to have bipartisan support for his no-strings Dream Act amnesty this Christmas. “We think we’re going to have a number of our Republican colleagues join us,” Schumer said Wednesday. “There are a lot of Republicans who want to pass DACA as well. So I am very optimistic it will pass.”
These 13 Republicans were in agreement, although without much enthusiasm.
Ros-Lehtinen reportedly said, “There’s a whole bunch of us that want to make this dream a reality.” Upton added, “We all respond by saying sí, right?”
Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., said at the Capitol Hill news conference that their remarks were meant to encourage Ryan and “maybe put a little pressure on him as well to come forward with that solution that a majority of Republicans can support” …
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, predicted widespread backing in the 435-member House.
“When the bill comes to the floor, whatever bill it is, I predict it will have a huge vote. Well over 300 votes to send this bill to the Senate,” Barton said.
A huge influx of Latino Americans has converted Barton’s district into a white-minority district. Whites comprise only 45 percent of the voters in the district, while Latinos comprise 22 percent. Newhouse is a fruit-grower in his home state and has championed continued industry reliance on cheap migrant workers instead of fruit-picking machinery. His district is now one-quarter Latino and he won his 2014 election by 1.6 percent.
Upton is a liberal in the GOP caucus and only holds a C rating from the NumbersUSA immigration-reform group. Ros-Lehtinen is a Cuban immigrant who has long favored Latino immigration. She is retiring in 2018. Issa’s district is in California, and the rising level of Latino voters nearly defeated him in 2016.
None of the legislators discussed any safeguards or offsets, such as the construction of the wall, or ending chain migrati0n and the visa lottery, or implementing President Donald Trump’s immigration principles. They appeared prepared, as Schumer and the assembled pro-DACA protesters on Capitol Hill demanded, to tie a “clean” amnesty to an omnibus spending bill by the end of the year.
The pro-amnesty statement by the 13 legislators was issued just as a new poll showed declining public support for a DACA-style amnesty. The poll found fewer than 30 percent of American voters think “fixing” DACA is a priority while 68 percent support mandatory E-Verify, 53 percent prioritize stopping employers hiring illegal aliens, and 54 percent said they wanted to see overall legal immigration levels reduced.
Trump's Mar-a-Lago gets approval to hire 70 foreign workers because there aren't enough Americans willing to do the jobs
Managers claim there aren't enough Americans qualified and willing to do work
Trump's hiring of foreign workers was criticized during the 2016 election
Trump defended Mar-a-Lago's hiring practices, saying not enough Americans apply for its low-end service jobs
Mar-a-Lago has been approved to employ 35 foreign waiters, 20 cooks and 15 housekeepers to help serve its 500 members starting this month through May 31
The waiters will receive $11.88 an hour with no tips, the cooks $13.34 an hour and the housekeepers $10.33 an hour
The waiters' and cooks' wages are slightly above the national average
The housekeepers' are slightly below, per Labor Dept. statistics
President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club has received permission to hire 70 foreign workers to fill out its staff during its upcoming busy season, after managers attested there aren't enough Americans qualified and willing to do the work.
The president's hiring of foreign workers at the Florida resort over several years was criticized by his opponents during the 2016 campaign after he slammed companies for moving jobs out of the U.S. and others for hiring immigrants in the country illegally.
During the Republican primary debates, Trump defended Mar-a-Lago's hiring practices, saying not enough Americans apply for its low-end service jobs and if his managers didn't recruit outside the country 'we might as well just close the doors.'
Trump Organization spokeswoman Amanda Miller did not return calls and emails seeking comment. Janine Gill, Mar-a-Lago's personnel director, also did not return a call.
Trump visited Mar-a-Lago seven times after his January 20 inauguration and is expected back this season, perhaps as early as Thanksgiving.
President Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort has received approval to hire 70 foreign workers for its upcoming busy season. The Florida club pictured above in April
Under requests approved by the U.S. Labor Department, Mar-a-Lago can employ 35 foreign waiters, 20 cooks and 15 housekeepers to help serve its 500 members starting this month through May 31.
The waiters will receive $11.88 an hour with no tips, the cooks $13.34 an hour and the housekeepers $10.33 an hour. The waiters' and cooks' wages are slightly above the national average for those fields and the housekeepers' slightly below, according to Labor Department statistics.
Trump (pictured above in Vietnam on Friday) came under fire in the 2016 presidential race for his hiring of foreign workers, especially since he blamed immigrants for stealing jobs from Americans
Mar-a-Lago has made similar requests in recent years, ranging from 88 employees in 2014 down to 64 last year.
Many other high-end resorts and clubs in Palm Beach County annually receive similar approvals from the government, including 141 foreign employees this year for The Breakers, a historic beachfront hotel near Mar-a-Lago, and 65 for The Polo Club of Boca Raton.
All are offering wages roughly similar to Mar-a-Lago, according to their Labor Department filings. The area's peak tourist season is from about Thanksgiving to Easter.
The workers are hired under the H-2B visa program, which is for seasonal, non-agriculture employees and is capped at 66,000 nationally per year.
The State Department says all visa applicants are screened against law enforcement and counter-terrorism databases, but would not say whether Mar-a-Lago applicants get extra scrutiny.
Peter Ricci, director of Florida Atlantic University's hospitality and tourism program, said most foreign workers hired by Palm Beach County resorts are students from Ireland, South Africa, Portugal and the Netherlands who are fulfilling a graduation requirement.
Ricci, who has studied and worked with the local resort industry, said most American hospitality students don't want to work as servers but want to get into a management trainee program, while the foreign students see high-end waiter and service jobs as possible careers and are eager to take them.
'The more upscale the type of venue, the more difficult it is to hire the type of (American) server or employee that we need,' Ricci said. 'With their culture from their home countries, (the foreign recruits) come with a more dedicated attitude for service that the recruiters just can't find enough of locally.'
Palm Beach County's unemployment rate is 3.6 percent, below the national rate of 4.1 percent. The county's Great Recession rate peaked at 11.6 percent in August 2010 and has been in a steady decline since.
Mar-a-Lago's members pay $14,000 annual dues for access to the 17-acre (6.9-hectare) estate, with new members paying a $200,000 initiation fee that doubled earlier this year.
Trump purchased Mar-a-Lago - 'The Greatest Mansion Ever Built,' according to its website - from the foundation of cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post in 1985 for $10 million and has invested tens of millions of dollars improving the property. He opened it as a club in 1995.
The property now boasts 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, a 20,000-square-foot ballroom, tennis and croquet courts and three bomb shelters. Members pay extra to dine and stay on the property.