Walls have a variety of purposes. In the Soviet Union and East Germany, walls and fences were designed to keep people in, not to keep people out. Few chose to go "Back to the USSR," as The Beatles sang, other than newl...
January 15, 2018
DACA Will Be a Wall around the White House
Walls have a variety of purposes. In the Soviet Union and East Germany, walls and fences were designed to keep people in, not to keep people out. Few chose to go "Back to the USSR," as The Beatles sang, other than newlyweds Mr. and Mrs. Bernie Sanders, who honeymooned there.
Walls also keep people out. Examples include the wall around Vatican City, the one in Israel's West Bank, and the ones around the homes of open borders advocates like Mark Zuckerberg. Many of the "walls for me but not for thee" virtue-signaling Hollywood elites have walls, fences, and all manner of security measures keeping uninvited guests from invading their domiciles.
How can DACA be a wall? Not in the way you might think. If Lindsey Grahamnesty and his fellow congressional amnesty fanboys and fangirls get their way, giving the "DREAMers" citizenship and the right to vote, this will create a wall around the White House.
This wall is not to be confused with the fence around the White House that mischievous sorts like to jump over, embarrassing the Secret Service. Instead, this wall will keep any Republican from ever living in the White House again.
Where are the 700,000 "DREAMers" in the U.S. living? And twice the number of illegal immigrants eligible for DACA? And if they vote, how will they vote? What does that mean for the Electoral College in the 2020 presidential election?
From the Migration Policy Institute's map of DACA recipients by state andPolitico's election results by state, how might the next presidential election play out if "DREAMers" are able to vote?
A 2012 study of 2,900 foreign-born naturalized immigrants found that 62 percent identified as Democrats and 25 percent as Republicans. That's a 2.5-fold difference favoring Democrats.
A Pew Research Center study from the same year found that undocumented latino immigrants identified 31 percent Democrat and 4 percent Republican, an eightfold difference.
Suffice it to say that the majority of "DREAMers" would pull the lever for the presidential candidate with the letter D after his name.
Where are DACA recipients living in the U.S.? Let's also distinguish between actual DACA recipients and those meeting all the criteria to apply. If DACA recipients are given a pathway to citizenship, it's likely that most or all those eligible will take advantage of American largess and become voting citizens.
The Migration Policy Institute identifies about 690,000 recipients and 1,326,000 eligible. For this analysis, I will use the numbers for the DACA-eligible, about twice the number of current recipients.
The Washington Post provides a rough approximation of where they live.
Forget large states like California, Illinois, and New York, as these are already solidly blue. Trump won Texas by around 800,000 votes, while only 182,000 DACA-eligible live in Texas, so that state won't likely flip.
Trump won Arizona by 85,000 votes, with 36,000 DACA-eligible – not an insurmountable margin. Michigan went for Trump by only 12,000 votes, with 10,000 DACA-eligible. Easy state to flip. Wisconsin voters picked Trump by 27,000 votes, with 10,000 DACA-eligible. Again, easy to flip.
Trump won Florida by 119,000 votes, with 72,000 DACA-eligible. The small remaining difference is easily surpassed by a good portion of the 73,000 hurricane refugees from Puerto Rico, now living in Florida, voting Democrat.
You get my point. It won't be difficult to flip a few states from red to blue, painting the Electoral College map mostly blue and keeping a Republican out of the White House for the foreseeable future – all accomplished by legalizing the "DREAMers" and those eligible for DACA.
Going farther is blanket amnesty for all illegals in the U.S. – not a million, but perhaps ten or twenty million. Enough to turn a solidly red state like Texas blue. Lights out for a Republican ever winning the presidency after that.
Lastly, if Trump caves on immigration, his core issue, many of his supporters will stay home, amplifying the votes of the "DREAMers" and painting the electoral map a deeper shade of blue.
No wonder Democrats are so eager for DACA amnesty. Don't listen just to Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, read what the Center for American Progress (better named the Center for Liberal Progress) circulated in a memo written by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri. She admitted that the DACA "DREAMers" are "[a] critical component of the Democratic Party's future electoral success."
No kidding. That's exactly why Ted Kennedy pushed the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, opening American doors to anyone able to get here as well as his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins, plus any other supposed relatives, filling the voter rolls with loyal Democrats for generations.
Legalizing the "DREAMers" will have a similar effect, especially if Congress doesn't end chain migration.
Immigration is one of the primary reasons why Donald Trump is president. His supporters are understandably nervous about his recent promise that whatever immigration Congress send him, "I will be signing it."
Trump's a smart guy, despite assertions to the contrary in Michael Wolff's book, and knows the importance of dancing with the base who brought him. I'm sure the Republican leadership in Congress knows this as well and won't allow a lousy bill to reach Trump's desk – meaning one without funding for the wall as well as continuation of chain migration and the green card lottery.
If Trump get what he wants but legalizes the "DREAMers," his road to 270 electoral votes in 2020 may be far more difficult, if not impossible. If I can see this, I am sure he can, too. Despite my trepidation over his recent comments, I am content to wait for the final bill to emerge. "Let's see what happens," as the president likes to say.
Trump has kept his campaign promises thus far, and I suspect that despite Lindsey Grahamnesty's giddiness over a "pathway to citizenship," the president will have the last laugh. His political future depends on it.
Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.
It's
time to sort the good from the bad in the 800,000-person DACA bloc
DACA:
THE IMMIGRATION TROJAN HORSE
How the original DREAM act was designed to
cover 90% of the illegal alien population in the US.
Ann Coulter: ‘Let’s Start by Deporting the DREAMers!’
Criminal illegals, tax cheats, sanctuary cities OK'd in Gang of Six immigration deal
January 15, 2018
It's
time to sort the good from the bad in the 800,000-person DACA bloc
A study shows that DACA-aged illegals are more likely to commit
additional crimes and be jailed than citizens. With all the news
about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program being subject to a
deal, this latest bit of news points to a need to start separating good from
bad DACA recipients in any amnesty deal for them.
According to the Washington Examiner:
A new report about crimes committed by
illegals finds that younger undocumented immigrants [sic; should be
"illegal aliens" –ed.] who were eligible for former President Obama's
DACA amnesty program commit far more crimes than other immigrants or U.S.
citizens.
In unearthing rare data that details the
crimes and sentences of illegals in Arizona, the Crime Prevention Research Center reported that
immigrants age 15-35, the general population of the 700,000 in Obama's Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals, "commit crime at twice the rate of young
U.S. citizens."
The crimes cited in the study are authentic thug-type crimes,
such as murder, rape, robbery, and kidnapping, not the white-collar variety
such as Social
Security identification theft, which is an even greater subset of
violators.
Two caveats should be noted from the report: the study covers only
Arizona state, and its conclusions are a nationwide projection from those
results. Also, the study itself covers only DACA-aged youths, not
actual verified DACA recipients.
That said, the research was done by the respected John Lott, whose
work is known for its rigor. Meanwhile, any youth of the right age
who hasn't applied for DACA would be a fool not to, given its 99% approval rate on applications. There is reason to
think there is merit in Lott's claims.
This points to a problem we see again and again in DACA
recipients: for every valedictorian proudly featured in the press among the
program's 800,000-strong number, we have far higher numbers of illiterates,
underachievers, unassimilated
non-English-speakers, dropouts,
and repeat
criminals.
The negotiations in the Congress on a DACA deal with President
Trump continuously use the 800,000-strong recipient base as an undifferentiated
bloc. Yet we know there was no differentiation in the approval
process, and the valedictorians went into the same bin as the underachievers
and the underclass-assimilators. Most Americans would be fine with
allowing the valedictorians and the 900 servicemembers among the 800,000-person
bloc as part of a deal, as these people would probably make successful
Americans. Where they draw the line is with gang members, habitual
criminals, underachievers, and terrorist sympathizers.
Why anyone would refrain from splitting up the DACA bloc into
categories that go well beyond an applicant's age is a mystery to
me. Breaking up the bloc will make a deal for the more deserving of
the applicants that much easier if a deal ever comes to pass.
DACA:
THE IMMIGRATION TROJAN HORSE
How the original DREAM act was designed to
cover 90% of the illegal alien population in the US.
January 12, 2018
Today
DACA (Deferred Action-Childhood Arrivals) is a major issue for
the Trump administration, with politicians from both parties attempting to
persuade President Trump to provide lawful status for the illegal aliens who
had been granted temporary lawful status in an ill-conceived and, indeed,
illegal program that had been implemented by President Obama, a politically
adept manipulator of language and a master of deception.
On December 18th I
participated in an interview on Fox News to discuss DACA and the fact
that according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) legalizing the
estimated population of “Dreamers” would cost an estimated $26 billion.
On January 9th President
Trump conducted a bi-partisan White House meeting to consider a
compromise that would provide lawful immigration status for the approximately
800,000 illegal aliens who enrolled in DACA. As the San Francisco
Chronicle reported, Trump seeks a "bill of
love" from Congress for "Dreamers"
The “deal” would require
funding a border wall, ending “chain migration” and perhaps, making E-Verify
mandatory. Of course without an adequate number of ICE agents, mandatory
E-Verify would be of limited value since unscrupulous employers could simply
hire illegal aliens “off the books” and without agents to conduct field
investigations these criminally deceptive employment practices would not be
discovered.
President Trump’s
previous call for hiring an additional 10,000 ICE agents was not mentioned by
the participants in the meeting. This is extremely worrisome.
A lack of effective
interior enforcement of our immigration laws, has for decades, undermined the
integrity of the immigration system. In fact the 9/11 Commission cited the
lack of interior enforcement as a key vulnerability that terrorists, and not
only the 9/11 hijackers, had exploited to embed themselves in the U.S. in
preparation to carrying out deadly attacks.
DACA was a travesty
foisted on America and Americans by the Obama administration, from its
inception, was a scam based on lies and false suppositions. Legalizing these
800,000 illegal aliens would, in point of fact, legitimize Obama’s illegal
action.
Obama claimed that he was
invoking “prosecutorial discretion” when he stood in the White House Rose
Garden on June 15, 2012 and announced that “since Congress failed to act” (to
pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform) he was going to act by creating DACA.
But in reality Congress did act: it voted down legislation known
as Comprehension Immigration Reform and, in so doing, took an action that is
consistent with the role of Congress as established by the U.S. Constitution
that created the system of “checks and balances.”
For Mr. Obama, however,
the problem was that Congress did not act the way he wanted
it to act.
Two days after that
speech in 2012, I wrote an Op-Ed, “Obama Invokes Prosecutorial Discretion to
Circumvent Constitution and Congress,” in which I noted that what Obama had
referred to as “Prosecutorial Discretion” should, in reality, be referred to as
“Prosecutorial Deception.”
Legitimate use of
prosecutorial discretion can provide a pragmatic solution to real-world
limitations of law enforcement resources in a manner comparable to a triage.
For example, law enforcement officers frequently ignore relatively minor
violations of law so that those limited resources can be available to address
more serious violations of law. Consider, for example, the police officer
operating speed radar who ignores cars that exceed the speed limit by a small
margin, but are being otherwise driven in a safe manner. This enables the
police officer to focus on vehicles that are being driven dangerously.
Under DACA, however,
illegal aliens were not ignored to conserve limited resources. In fact,
limited resources were not conserved but were squandered to provide temporary
lawful status to a huge number of illegal aliens without legal authority or
justification.
Moreover, DACA
constituted the de facto creation of law without the legislative process, but
by unconstitutional executive fiat.
Let’s now consider the
notion of “deferred action,” the foundation upon which DACA was purportedly
created. There are legitimate provisions in the immigration system to provide
aliens with “deferred action” when it is a matter of compassion, for
humanitarian purposes. The key word is “deferred.” What is deferred
is the ultimate required departure of non-immigrant aliens.
For example, if a family
from another country lawfully came to the United States as non-immigrants for a
temporary visit with friends or relatives in the United States and one of the
members of the family was injured in an accident or became ill, those aliens
could apply for deferred action so that they would not have to leave the United
States until the family crisis was resolved.
As an INS agent I dealt
with such cases. Generally the doctor who was treating the injured or ill
family member would provide documentation to immigration authorities to verify
the medical situation, with periodic updates.
As an INS special agent I
was responsible for conducting investigations to make certain that
applications were not fraudulent.
Generally these aliens
would not be granted employment authorization except under the most
extraordinary of circumstances if they needed to remain in the United States
for a protracted period of time. However, DACA essentially “dropped a net” over
800,000 illegal aliens, not out of humanitarian concerns because of an unforeseen
emergency but as a means of achieving a political objective.
Obama claimed that his
action was to help young people who were brought to the United States by their
parents and, consequently, were the victims of their parents’ actions over
which they had no control.
Obama was counting on the
fact that Americans are among the most compassionate people in the world,
especially where children are concerned. Media reports furthered this
narrative and, to this day, many ill-informed Americans believe that all aliens
who participated in DACA were teenagers. But in fact, the age cutoff was
actually 31. These aliens simply needed to claim that
they had been brought to the United States prior to their 16th birthdays.
Those aliens today might now be as old as 36 years of age. DACA should
have been called DACCA
(Deferred Action- Claimed Childhood Arrivals).
There were virtually no
interviews or field investigations to verify any information or claims
contained in the applications.
(The DREAM Act would have
allowed aliens as old as 35 years of age to apply to participate in the amnesty
that would have been created had the legislation passed.)
It is vital to note that
even the term DREAM Act and the derivative term “Dreamers” is
hypocritical. Ever since the administration of Jimmy Carter, the term
“Alien” has been eradicated from the immigration debate, not out of supposed
“political correctness” but as a means of Orwellian thought control and
Newspeak.
However, the “DREAM Act”
is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education
for Alien Minors Act. It is
maddening that when the imagery of the “American Dream” can be exploited, the
term “alien” becomes palatable -- but only when used in conjunction with
this bit of Orwellian deception.
If the purpose of the
DREAM Act was to help young illegal aliens, why did the politicians and “Gang of Eight” not simply limit it to aliens who had
not yet attained the age of 21 and who could provide immigration authorities
with their current school transcripts and report cards to verify their status
as students in good standing?
What was never discussed
in the mainstream media is that the whole point to the DREAM Act, pushed by
some members of Congress and particularly the “Gang of Eight,” was to construct a legislated
immigration “Trojan Horse.”
The DREAM Act established
35 years of age as the cutoff age for this amnesty because it would have
covered an estimated 90% of the illegal alien population in the United
States. Furthermore, without the ability to conduct interviews, let alone
field investigations, aliens could easily lie about their identities, their
dates of birth and even their dates of entry into the United States.
There would be no way for
adjuration officers to refute the claims of the aliens who participated in
the program.
The DREAM Act was a
carefully disguised version of failed legislation known as Comprehensive
Immigration Reform.
In 2007, after I
testified about Comprehensive Immigration Reform before several hearings in the
House and Senate, I wrote an Op-Ed for the Washington Times, Immigration bill a ‘No Go' in which I
suggested that the legislative disaster be renamed the “Terrorist Assistance
and Facilitation Act” because under that legislation, millions of illegal
aliens who had entered the United States surreptitiously and without
inspection, would have been provided with lawful status and official identity
documents.
This would have violated
the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to which I provided
testimony.
I was gratified when
then-Senator Jeff Sessions quoted my Op-Ed from the floor of the U.S. Senate
during the contentious floor debate on Comprehensive Immigration Reform on
three separate days, in which he shared my concerns and my proposed new name
for that legislation.
The Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) created a massive amnesty program that
ultimately led to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our
nation. It has been said that insanity is doing the same things the same
way and expecting a different outcome.
As a highly successful
real estate magnate, President Trump must especially understand that just as it
is unwise to erect a building on a swamp, legislation must be constructed on
morally and legally solid ground.
Politicians supporting widespread amnesty for
illegal aliens, said Coulter, were motivated by either “corruption or
stupidity” in their pursuit to “destroy our country.”
Ann Coulter: ‘Let’s Start by Deporting the DREAMers!’
WASHINGTON SECRETS
Criminal illegals, tax cheats, sanctuary cities OK'd in Gang of Six immigration deal
by Paul bEdard | From left, President Donald Trump, accompanied by Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Vice President Mike Pence, Senate Majority Whip Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., and Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., speaks during a meeting on immigration in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, Thursday, Jan. 4, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
No comments:
Post a Comment