JOE BIDEN’S AMNESTY FOR 40M ILLEGALS WILL ENABLE THEM TO BRING UP THE REST OF MEXICO! He added, “Illegal immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower overhead.” PAUL BEDARD
Monday, November 26, 2018
TRUMP SEEKS DEAL WITH NARCOMEX AS THE MEXICANS BUS THE INVADERS TO OUR BORDERS - HOW LONG WILL AMERICA PUT UP WITH THE MEXICAN INVASION?
MEXICO'S BIGGEST EXPORTS TO U.S. ARE POVERTY, ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS FOR WELFARE, CRIMINALS, HEROIN and UNREGISTERED DEMOCRAT VOTERS.
RAPE, MURDER, MOLESTATION and then go vote DEMOCRAT FOR
HOW MANY INVADING ILLEGAL CRIMINALS WERE DEPORTED?
For several months the human tsunami of thousands of individuals heading north from Central America, through Mexico and ultimately to the United States, has captured headlines and the attention of the media and politicians in both the U.S. and Mexico.
While the “caravan of migrants,” as it has come to be known, appears to emanate from Central America, there is a great potential that citizens of countries from outside the Western Hemisphere, including so-called “Special Interest Countries” -- that is to say, countries that have a nexus with terrorism -- may also have embedded themselves within the caravan along with individuals who have criminal histories and aliens who may have been previously deported from the United States.
I addressed the potential for terrorists to see in the caravan an opportunity to gain entry into the United States in my article, "The Impending Alien Invasion."
It is also worth considering that under the provisions of 8 U.S. Code § 1326 an alien who is deported from the United States and then reenters the country without first being granted lawful authority to return is committing a felony that may carry a maximum prison sentence of 20 years.
When President Trump issued a proclamation that would deny aliens who entered the United States without inspection the right to file an application for asylum, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a Temporary Restraining Order to block the implementation of that proclamation. As I noted in my recent article, the judge was ignoring the Constitution, the 9/11 Commission Report and common sense.
Of late, polls conducted in the United States have shown that within the last month more Americans have come to consider illegal immigration to be the issue of greatest concern confronting America.
On November 22, 2018 (Thanksgiving Day) I participated in a segment on the Fox News program Fox & Friendsthat focused on this very issue.
It is my opinion, and one shared by the other participants in that Fox News segment, that Americans’ heightened concerns about illegal immigration are directly related to that caravan approaching the U.S./Mexican border.
President Trump, who made illegal immigration the centerpiece of his successful campaign for the Presidency, has responded to the threats and potential threats posed by the caravan if the members of that caravan ultimately succeeded in entering the United States and vanishing into communities across the United States. Trump ordered members of the U.S. military to the U.S./Mexican border to begin erecting barriers and to support the efforts of the beleaguered U.S. Border Patrol.
Unlike previous administrations that have refused to secure that dangerous and highly porous border that enabled millions of illegal aliens to enter the United States without inspection, and tons of narcotics to be smuggled into the U.S., it has been clear from the outset that President Trump was determined not to permit this invasion of our borders and our nation. This, even despite Congress not funding the border wall that he has wanted to erect.
Meanwhile, as the talking heads and members of the mainstream media speculated as to what will ultimately happen, it would appear that Donald Trump, the “Deal Maker in Chief” has cut a deal with incoming Mexican President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his administration. On November 24, 2018 the Chicago Tribunepublished a report that had initially run in the Washington Post, “Deal with Mexico would make asylum seekers wait outside U.S. border: Mexican officials.”
This excerpt from the newspaper report explains how President Trump may have convinced the Mexicans to cooperate:
Alarmed by Trump's deployment of U.S. military forces to California, Arizona and Texas, and his threats to close busy border crossings, Mexican officials were further determined to take action after migrants traveling as part of a caravan forced their way onto Mexican soil last month, pushing past police blockades at the border with Guatemala.
For the first time, a president of the United States has begun the process of negotiating an agreement with Mexico that could prove to be a true immigration “game changer.”
Under the agreement, presuming it is finalized, aliens who want to pursue asylum applications in the United States would have to wait in Mexico until their applications could be filed and processed, turning chaos into a more orderly system.
For decades aliens and their smugglers had come to count on chaos along the U.S./Mexican border that would enable them to run our nation’s borders and use the claim of “credible fear” as a “Plan B” if they were caught by the U.S. Border Patrol. If they were not caught by the Border Patrol they would simply head to towns and cities across the United States and not bother filing an application for asylum.
Additionally, aliens who filed applications for asylum at ports of entry were often paroled into the United States where they also disappeared into communities across our nation as did aliens who were apprehended by the Border Patrol and served with Notices to Appear (NTAs). Frustrated Border Patrol agents came to call those “Notices to Disappear!”
If final arrangements can be made with Mexico, the United States will impose an orderly system that will give Customs and Border Inspectors and others who will be assigned to adjudicate applications for asylum the time to imbue the system with a bit more integrity.
While it won’t eliminate fraud in the system, it will represent a major step to help combat fraud. As more aliens come to realize that they will have to wait in Mexico and that their applications will be more thoroughly scrutinized, it is likely that more aliens will be deterred from filing fraud-laden applications. As the number of applications fall, the ability to more thoroughly scrutinize the applications that are filed will increase.
This will certainly enhance U.S. national security because, as I noted in my extensive article, "Immigration Fraud- Lies That Kill," visa fraud and immigration fraud were identified by the 9/11 Commission as the key methods of terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.
There are many reasons why, for the first time, the government of Mexico would agree to work cooperatively with the United States over an extremely serious immigration-related issue. It is likely, of course that President Trump was not just posturing when he said he would cut off aid to Mexico and other countries who permit the United States to be invaded by illegal aliens.
Additionally, as the newspaper article I cited above noted:
According to outlines of the plan, known as Remain in Mexico, asylum applicants at the border will have to stay in Mexico while their cases are processed, potentially ending the system, which Trump decries as "catch and release," that has generally allowed those seeking refuge to wait on safer U.S. soil.
"For now, we have agreed to this policy of Remain in Mexico," said Olga Sánchez Cordero, Mexico's incoming interior minister, the top domestic policy official for López Obrador, who takes office Dec. 1. In an interview with The Washington Post, she called it a "short-term solution."
"The medium- and long-term solution is that people don't migrate," Sánchez Cordero said. "Mexico has open arms and everything, but imagine one caravan after another after another. That would also be a problem for us."
In other words, Mexico is being flooded with citizens from Central America that are stirring anger and animosity among Mexican citizens who are far less tolerant of the intrusion of these aliens into their country. It would appear that the government of Mexico is motivated to end the flood of illegal aliens who are seeking to use Mexico as a stepping stone to the United States.
While the U.S. mainstream media accuses any Americans who oppose illegal immigration of being bigots and racists, Mexicans who are also members of the Latino ethnic community, share the same concerns that Americans have about the dangers and difficulties that illegal immigration creates.
Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who has led the charge against the Trump administration efforts to restore integrity to the immigration system, was quoted in the article as stating, "The Administration ought to concentrate on providing a fair and lawful asylum process in the U.S. rather than inventing more and more ways to try to short-circuit it.”
Here is something Mr. Gelernt should consider: the United States has had the most generous immigration system in the world and continues to do so. When you consider how many applications for asylum are denied because of fraud or because the aliens themselves fail to go forward with the process, it is apparent that the majority of these aliens have been using bogus claims of “credible fear” as an (illegal) alternative to the lawful visa process to gain entry into the United States. This makes a mockery of our immigration system and imposes dangers and hardships on America and Americans.
There is nothing “fair or lawful” about asylum fraud or illegal immigration.
“The radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost" territories in the American Southwest.” Maria Hsia Chang Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada Reno
"Mexican president candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador called for mass immigration to the United States, declaring it a "human right". We will defend all the (Mexican) invaders in the American," Obrador said, adding that immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life, job, welfare, and free medical in the United States."
"Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed ranting AMNESTY TO MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added."
COST to AMERICANS of the LA RAZA MEXICAN OCCUPATION in CALIFORNIA ALONE: $2,370 per legal.
"Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become." FAIR President Dan Stein.
Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S WAR ON AMERICA’S LEGAL WORKERS, BORDERS AND LAWS as they build the LA RAZA welfare state on our backs.
One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances! MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM
"Chairman of the DNC Keith Ellison was even spotted wearing a shirt stating, "I don't believe in borders" written in Spanish.
According to a new CBS news poll, 63 percent of Americans in competitive congressional districts think those crossing illegally should be immediately deported or arrested. This is undoubtedly contrary to the views expressed by the Democratic Party.
Their endgame is open borders, which has become evident over the last eight years. Don't for one second let them convince you otherwise."Evan Berryhill Twitter @EvBerryhill.
The opinions expressed by
columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
One fact a lot of Americans forget is
that our country is located right up against a socialist failed state that is
promising to descend even further into chaos – not California, the other one.And the Mexicans,
having reached the bottom of the hole they have dug for themselves, just chose
to keep digging by electing a new leftist presidente who wants
to surrender to the cartels and who thinks that Mexicans have some sort of
hitherto unknown “human right” to sneak into the United States and
demographically reconquer it. There’s a Spanish phrase that describes his
ideology, and one of the words is toro.
Mexico is already a failed state,
crippled by a poisoned, stratified culture and a corrupt government that have
somehow managed to turn a nation so blessed with resources and hardworking
people into such a basket case that millions of its citizens see their best
option as putting themselves in the hands of gangsters to cross a burning
desert to get cut-rate jobs in el Norte. It is a country dominated by bloody
drug/human trafficking cartels that like to circulate videos of their members
carving up living people. They hang mutilated corpses from overpasses and
hijack busloads of citizens to rape and slaughter for fun. Whole police
agencies are owned by the cartels. Political candidates live in fear of murder.
The people are scared. And this chaos will inevitably grow and spread north.
are already here, importing the meth and fentanyl that are slaughtering tens of
thousands of Americans a year after coming across the border the Democrats
refuse to defend. Let’s not even think about the other foreigners, like Islamic
terrorists, who might exploit this vulnerability. “Abolish ICE,” the liberals
screech, yet what they really mean is “Erase that line on the map.” But that
line is all that is keeping the bloodshed in Mexico at bay for now. You can
stand on US soil, look south, and see places where the rates of killing dwarf
those of the Middle Eastern killing fields you see on TV.
in Mexico will spill over the theoretical border. It is just a matter of time.
Normal Americans know it. As my book upcoming book Militant Normals explains,
the establishment willfully ignoring their legitimate concerns about border
security is a big part of why Normals are getting militant. The Democrats, and
the GOP donor class stooges, have a vested interest in ignoring the issue, and
they will insure that both the political class and the hack media will continue
to play ostrich. Already there are Americans, on American soil, living near the
border who cannot venture outside at night on their own property for fear of
being murdered because of foreigners invading out territory. This is
intolerable for any sovereign country. Yet there is a huge liberal
constituency, abetted by GOPe fellow travelers, not merely willing to tolerate
the invasion but who actively want to increase the flow.
125-million-man criminal conspiracy that is Mexico falls apart completely, as
it will, we are going to have to deal with the consequences. Watch the flood of
illegals become a tsunami, a real refugee crisis instead of today’s fake one.
Watch the criminal gangs and pathologies of the Third World socialist culture they
bring along turn our country into Mexico II: Gringo Boogaloo. And importing a huge mass of foreigners, loyal to a foreign country and
potentially susceptible to the reconquista de Aztlan rhetoric
of leftists, both among them and among our treacherous liberal elite, would
create a cauldron for brewing up violent civil upheaval right here at home.
do we do? We defend ourselves, obviously. But how?
be reactive? Should we continue the fake defense of our border we’re pretending
to conduct today? Or should we seriously defend ourselves by building a wall
and truly guarding it, and by deporting all illegals we catch inside. But would
that even be enough when Mexico collapses?
to ask: Should we be proactive?
invade Mexico? Should we send our military across the Rio Grande to secure the
unstable territory, annihilate the criminal infestation that suppurates there,
and impose something resembling order? One thing is certain. The border charade
we tolerate today can’t be an option – it’s an open door to the fallout from
the failing state next door.
there are three obvious courses of action (I had input on this by several
people familiar with the issue; none of this reflects any actual operational
planning that I or anyone I spoke to is aware of).
the Buffer Zone option. We move in and secure a zone perhaps 50-100 miles
inside the country, aggressively targeting and annihilating criminal gangs – we
know where these bastards are – and thereby seal off the threat until Mexico is
secure again and then return the territory once we are assured America is safe.
doable, but it would take a huge chunk of our military forces (we would need to
call up most of our reserves). The conventional Mexican forces that fought
would last for about un momento before being vaporized, but
it would spark at a minimum a low-intensity insurgency by cartel hardliners
and, at worst, a large one by Mexican patriots, probably using guns left over
from when the Obama cartel was shipping them south. Regardless, it would be
expensive. There is the “You break it, you buy it” rule. We would end up
administering a long strip of territory full of people living, largely, in what
Americans consider abject poverty. They would become our problem. Moreover,
there is the giving back part – millions of Mexicans might find they like being
nieces and nephews of Tio Sam.
second is Operation Mexican Freedom, a much more ambitious campaign that would
recognize what liberals already think – that Mexico and America are one
country. Our forces would conquer the nation by driving all the way south,
perhaps with an amphibious landing at Veracruz for old times sake and because
the Marines would insist, then seal the Mexican-Guatemalan border. We would
annex the whole country, making it a colony like Puerto Rico (A dozen new
senators from Old Mexico? Nogracias). We would kill every
terrorist drug gang member and take or torch everything they own, while
simultaneously deporting every illegal from the US-Canada border to the
course, that would take up pretty much our entire military and certainly spark
some sort of endless guerilla conflict. We would be stuck in another bloody,
expensive fight to make a Third World country cease sucking despite itself. It
would make the Iraq War seem cheap. But, on the plus side, Bill Kristol and his
bombs away pals would probably be excited.
both cases the Europeans would be outraged, which is a powerful argument for
no. Invading Mexico is a bad idea. It would convert the problems of Mexico,
created and perpetuated by Mexicans, into our problems. We tried that in the
Middle East. It doesn’t work. Making Mexico better for Mexicans is not worth
the life of one First Infantry Division grenadier.
consequences in America are our problem, and we must solve it. That brings us
to the third option – Forward Defense. Think Syria in Sinaloa. We secure the
border, with a wall of concrete and a wall of troops, perhaps imposing a
no-fly/no-sail zone (excepting our surveillance and attack aircraft), and then
conduct operations inside Mexico using special operations forces combined with
airpower to target and eliminate the cartels. We would also identify friendly
local Mexican police and military officials and support their counter-cartel
operations outside of our relationship with the central government – they would
be the face of the fight. We would channel Hernán Cortés and, in
essence, we would allow friendly Mexican allies, with our substantial direct
and indirect support, to create our buffer zone for us.
avoids the problem of buying Mexico’s problems and making them ours. It’s
somewhat deniable; everyone could save face by denying the Yankees have
intervened. But the cartels would not just sit there and take it. They would
target Americans and probably do so inside the United States. Yet that’s going
to happen anyway eventually. This course of action risks the lowest number of
US casualties, but perhaps the highest number of Mexican losses.
So no, we
should not invade Mexico. There are no good military options, and none are
necessary or wise today, but we may eventually have to choose between bad
options. Mexico is failing more and more every day. We are not yet at the point
of a military solution, but anyone who says that day can never come is lying to
himself and to you. We need a wall, but more than that, we need the commitment
to American security and sovereignty that a wall would physically represent.
The issue is very clear, and we need to be very, very clear about it when we
are campaigning in November. Border security. Period.
going to prioritize the interests of liberals who want to replace our militant Normal voters with
pliable foreigners and establishment stooges who want to please rich donors by
importing countless cheap foreign laborers, or are we going to prioritize the
economic security and the physical safety of American citizens by securing our
border no matter what it takes?
open borders mafia, let’s have that discussion. Bueno suerte with
that at the ballot box.
One new Mexican president. Dozens of new reasons to build the
In Mexico, it is often impolite to tell
someone "No." If you want to spare someone's feelings,
many people say "Maybe."
Everyone knows that means "No."
Mexico stopped worrying about American
feelings long ago. Among the fashionable public officials and
academics, scorn has been the ruling emotion for decades. We see
that more recently in the last week's elections.
Pretending otherwise is just too much work
in Mexico today. The new president declares he is a socialist, but
he will be hard pressed to show how his new socialist policies are at all
different from the old socialist policies that govern so many parts of Mexican
life. That's what we said about Venezuela, come to think of it.
Those who predict
that their "Fill in Blank" Latin American country has finally
bottomed out and is now turning around are often, even invariably, wrong.
But at least admitting they are socialists
has the added benefit of sticking a finger in the eye of their terrible
neighbors to the north – who everyone knows ruined Mexico by stealing a good
chunk of the country in 1848.
Anyone who reads the daily papers in
Mexico is reminded of that 157-year-old treaty every day: for most of the
country, the national slogan and curse remains "Mexico, so far from God,
so close to the United States." We can even hear it today from Mexican
nationals and their descendants in the U.S. who glorify La Raza at the expense
of their adopted country.
Oh, and by the way, Americans are still
waiting for any kind of public display of support for those who died on
9-11. Mexicans largely ignored it, when they were not supporting it
behind closed doors at their local universities.
The truly troubling pronouncements out of
Mexico City are even easier to find. The newly elected president, Andrés
López-Obrador, was gleeful during the election when he told his compadres they
should all move to America, illegally. His
encouragement along with his pro-poverty policies will set the stage for
another tsunami of illegal immigration.
Then members of López-Obrador's
Cabinet-in-waiting started talking about the war on drug cartels, and why
should Mexico do America's dirty work?
The first statement does not need much
interpretation, other than the obvious but often ignored: the new president of
Mexico is encouraging his countrymen to invade the United
States. Not with guns and soldiers, but with campesinos and huaraches.
It's a bitter and hostile act that we
should treat as such.
The new talk about amnesty for
drug-dealers is even crazier. This is just an admission of what
anyone who cares to already knows: Mexico is run by a collection of drug
cartels and other violent outlaws. This collection of criminals has
killed thousands of public officials, policemen, and reporters – all in the
name of preserving a criminal status quo that no one even feels like pretending
does not exist anymore. They even write songs glorifying them.
They get what they want when they want it.
That is why we cannot build the
Coulter-Trump Border Wall fast enough, tall enough, and proudly enough.
In addition to writing scintillating
bestsellers about black violence in America, good ol' Colin Flaherty also
covered Mexico for several newspapers and radio stations in San Diego, back in
How to Humanely Reduce Unlawful Immigration and Shut Down
Today's lesson on morality and human rights comes
from the probable
(according to polls) next president of our crime-infested and corrupt neighbor to the south (emphases added):
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO)
called for mass immigration to the United States[,] ...declaring it a "human
right" for all North Americans.
"[W]e will defend all the migrants in the American continent
and all the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants
"must leave their
towns and find a life in the United States."
Apparently, the U.S. must welcome an unlimited number of these
unwanted, by their
own president, Mexicans, because the U.S. is morally obligated to
serve as Mexico's social-dysfunction safety valve and ATM.
Did you know that "chutzpah" is the same in Hebrew and
Spanish? On the other hand, everyone knows that Obrador can count on
a large cohort of Democrats, who share
The reaction among immigration advocates has gone from outrage
about family separations to consternation about family detention, because their
ultimate goal is to let the migrants come into the United States and stay.
Lest anyone misunderstand, when Democrats say "the,"
they mean "all." Today, it's "family
separations"; tomorrow, who knows? But whatever the Dems'démagogie du jour,
most Americans want illegal immigration greatly reduced and, ideally,
eliminated. The latter, most likely, is a pipe dream. But
not only can the former be done. It can be done using methods
already tried and proven.
First, yes, we need a wall. If the tooth-and-nail
opposition of our open-border Democratic friends is insufficient evidence that
a wall would work, consider, as President Trump has, Israel's
wall. Israel had an illegal alien problem, too – or she did, until
she built a wall, as a February 2017 Senate report confirmed:
The number of illegal crossers on the Israel-Egypt border dropped
after the construction of the fence, from more than 16,000 in 2011 to less than
20 in 2016 – a 99 percent decrease.
One can argue, as some do, that other Israeli measures contributed
to the decrease. But there can be no doubt that the wall was the
primary, and a major, factor.
So a wall – and ending chain migration, and ending the visa
lottery, and mandatory E‑Verify – will greatly reduce unlawful
immigration. But there is one more thing government can do.
Allow the writer, whose father immigrated to America as a refugee,
in 1948, to elucidate:
When the writer's dad got off the boat, he did not simply
disembark in Manhattan, casually stroll streets paved with gold and buy the
Brooklyn Bridge. First, he had to stop here:
In the first half of the 19th century, most immigrants arriving in
New York City landed at docks on the east side of the tip of Manhattan, around
South Street. On August 1, 1855, Castle Clinton became the Emigrant
Landing Depot[.] ... [W]hen the U.S. government assumed control of immigration
processing, [it moved] the center to the larger, more isolated Ellis Island
facility on January 2, 1892 ... because immigrants were known to carry
diseases, which led to epidemics of cholera and smallpox.
The key word in the above quote is "isolated," as in no
physical route for unlawful aliens on to the mainland.
Then, the dangers were cholera and smallpox. Today, the
dangers are MS-13 violence, lack of education and marketable skills, and the
threat of someday becoming citizens and voting for Democrats. In
both cases, the problem was a threat to the population from foreign
immigration. And in both cases, the solution was to isolate new
arrivals until they could be properly vetted and admitted into the mainland
The writer lives in New York City, and last time he checked, Ellis
Island was still there, repurposed as a museum. So how about making
so-called catch-and-release unnecessary by returning Ellis Island to its
original use and supplementing or replacing the current buildings with one or
more new, modern dormitories, where illegals seized at the border could be
housed comfortably, for as long as required, and with no need to separate
On the other hand, Ellis Island is on the opposite side of the
country from the Mexican border, where the main problem is. Alcatraz
Island is not. What about the Virgin Islands, Guam, or any number of
U.S. island possessions, where the climate is both comfortable and similar to
that of Mexico and Central America? The specific location is less
important than that there be no physical access to the mainland, nor would the
housing need to be overly expensive – Quonset huts if space allows, or easily
convertible, and stackable, cargo containers.
The U.S. Navy drafting plans to house up to 25,000 immigrants on
its bases and other facilities, at an estimated cost of about $233 million over
six months, as the Trump administration seeks to ease a mounting crisis on the
Mexican border[.] ...
[T]he draft document ... also says that a Navy base in California
could house up to a further 47,000 people.
Problem solved...almost. It's a good plan, but with one
major flaw: perhaps the writer is mistaken, but it seems that all of the
proposed military bases are on the mainland U.S. Again, the
locations should be isolated, with no physical connection to the
mainland. There is also the issue of cost and not just the $233
million for six months (so $466 billion per year); one company has a $162-million
contract "to fly immigrant
children to shelters across the United States."
There is a better, and possibly cheaper, solution. It's
staring the Navy right in the face.
Surely, most readers know that the Navy maintains a reserve, or
"mothball," fleet of decommissioned ships anchored in various parts
of the country, including California.
Your typical aircraft carrier houses about 6,000
sailors. But think of all that extra space on the (unused) flight
deck. Aircraft carriers also have kitchens specifically designed to feed
thousands of people.
America is not suffering from a shortage of decommissioned
ships. Why pay hundreds of millions of dollars to fly apprehended
illegals to multiple locations around the continental U.S. when the Navy can
move the ships to the immigrants, anchoring as close to the problem as possible
but far enough from shore to keep illegals from accessing the
mainland? Other mothballed ships could ferry large numbers of
illegals to and from the offshore ships far more cheaply than flying them all
over the country.
Additional ships could even return rejected aliens to their home
countries – preferably, as Eisenhower did, on the side of the home country
farthest from the U.S.
Should any liberal open-borders Democrat complain, just casually
mention, preferably publicly, that American sailors lived on those same ships,
for much longer, and make popcorn while Democrats explain why what was good
enough for American sailors is not good enough for foreigners, who have done
nothing for America and who have no legal right even to be here.
Let all potential trespassers know that should they manage to
violate our border, the only part of America they will ever see is the part of
America they can see from the deck of a ship before being transported on a slow
boat back to their home countries, and unlawful immigration will
drop. Like a rock.
Gene Schwimmer is a New
York- and New Jersey-licensed real estate broker and author of The
The disintegration of California,
a Mexican satellite welfare state of poverty, crime and high taxes
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel
López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States during a
speech Tuesday declaring it a "human right" for all North
Americans. "And soon, very soon – after the victory of our
movement – we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all
the migrants in the world," Obrador said, adding that immigrants
"must leave their towns and find a life in the United States."
He then declared it as "a human right we
will defend," eluniversal.comreports. While the election is not
until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner.
let's analyze what he said.
how would any of this help Mexico? My serious Mexican friends tell
me they'd rather find prosperity and jobs in their country. Telling
people to go north is another way of saying that AMLO's policies will not help
Mexico keep Mexicans. Believe it or not, most Mexicans would rather
stay home, or at least that's what they tell me.
is AMLO proposing to change Mexico's rigid immigration laws? Is he
going to open Mexico's southern border and allow people in? How does
AMLO define a "migrant"?
does he believe that the U.S. is just going to sit back and watch Mexicans
cross the border?
bad news is that AMLO's remarks are irresponsible and not
helpful. The good news is that he may be getting desperate, sensing
that Mr. Anaya is gaining on him.
1) Mexico ended legal immigration 100
years ago, except for Spanish blood.
2) Mexico is the 17th richest nation but
pays the 220th lowest minimum wage to force their subjects to invade the USA.
The expands territory for Mexicans, spreads the Spanish language, and culture
and genotypes, while earning 17% of Mexico's gross GDP as Foreign Remittance Income.
DEATH OF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS AND THE STAGGERING COST OF MEXICO’S WELFARE
STATE AND CRIME TIDAL WAVE ON AMERICAN BACKS.
presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass
immigration to the United States during a speech Tuesday declaring it a “human
right” for all North Americans.
“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we
will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in
the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find
a life in the United States.”
then declared it as “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports.
the election is not until July 1, Obrador is by far the frontrunner.
in April delivered speech criticizing Trump and promising that Mexico will not
become a “piñata” for any foreign government, Global News reports.
former mayor of Mexico City, Obrador holds progressive populist views. The
64-year-old ran unsuccessfully for president twice before, according
Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that Obrador has previously proposed granting
amnesty to Mexican drug cartels. “America is now Mexico’s social safety net,
and that’s a very good deal for the Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added.
be sure, AMLO is only saying out loud what every other Mexican president
believed in his heart; that America is Mexico's "social safety net"
and that it's up to the US taxpayer to take care of Mexico's unemployable,
by AMLO is the implication of a mass migration of Mexicans to the US. The
not-so-secret dream of every Mexican government that illegals flooding into
America will eventually allow for a "return" of California and much
of the American southwest to Mexico.
makes this socialist different, however, is his novel argument that entering
the US illegally is actually a "human right." That's an opinion
we could have a lot of fun with. One would assume if it was a "human
right" to illegally enter the US, that it would then be a human right to
enter Mexico - or any other country, for that matter.
Of course, AMLO is just pushing leftist buttons by
proclaiming this brand spanking new human right. He can't be serious, can he?
It hardly matters. Trump will, I'm sure, have something to say about a
mass migration of Mexicans to the US and if this socialist nutjob actually
believes he can encourage that kind of invasion and not suffer any
consequences, he doesn't know our president.
Mexican Presidents Deny They Took Bribes from El Chapo
Two former Mexican presidents publicly denied taking bribes from the Sinaloa Cartel. The statements came after the legal defense for Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera made contrary claims this week.
The drug lord is facing several money laundering and drug trafficking charges at a federal trial in New York. In his opening statement, defense attorney Jeffrey Lichtman spoke of bribes “including the very top, the current president of Mexico and the former.”
Soon after the statements became public, Mexico’s government issued a statement denying the allegations. Eduardo Sanchez, the spokesman for current Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said the statements were false and “defamatory.”
El gobierno de @EPN persiguió, capturó y extraditó al criminal Joaquín Guzmán Loera. Las afirmaciones atribuidas a su abogado son completamente falsas y difamatorias
investigation by Mexican journalists which revealed how Juarez Cartel operators funneled money into the 2012 presidential campaign. The investigation was carried out by Mexican award- winning journalist Carmen Aristegui and her team. The subsequent scandal became known as “Monexgate” for the cash cards that were given out during Peña Nieto’s campaign. The allegations against Pena Nieto went largely unreported by U.S. news outlets.
Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com.
Brandon Darby is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Mexican Invasion & Occupation