VISUALIZE REVOLUTION! - "When we hear stories about the homelessness in California and elsewhere, why don't we hear how illegal aliens contribute to the problem? They take jobs and affordable housing, yet instead of discouraging illegal aliens from breaking the law, politicians encourage them to come by lavishing free stuff on them with confiscated dollars from this and future generations." JACK HELLNER
Ohio’s “America First” congressional candidate in the 16th District, Christina Hagan, is hitting back at the pro-amnesty U.S. Chamber of Commerce for pouring $300,000 into her opponent’s campaign.
In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, Hagan slammed the Chamber of Commerce for their support of her opponent, Anthony Gonzalez, and their efforts to defeat her in the district, saying their “open borders agenda” is one that seeks to undermine the wages of American workers.
Hagan told Breitbart News:
The Chamber of Commerce has a long history of backing pro-amnesty candidates. That’s why they’re supporting Anthony Gonzalez, because he’ll be a rubber stamp for their agenda of amnesty, open borders and undermining the American worker. They know that he’ll say one thing in Ohio and do another in Washington, DC
As Breitbart News reported, the Chamber of Commerce is spending thousands to defeat Hagan in Ohio. Despite pushback from the Republican establishment, Hagan—endorsedby the NRA—has focused her campaign on the three populist issues that propelled President Trump to victory: Reducing immigration, ending trade deals that result in American job loss, and opposing foreign interventionism.
The Chamber of Commerce has long opposed Trump’s “America First” agenda on immigration and trade, supporting an amnesty for illegal aliens and continued mass legal immigration where the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal immigrants every year.
This past year, the Chamber of Commerce infamously teamed up with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s open borders lobbying group, FWD.us, to bring illegal aliens to Capitol Hill to convince vulnerable lawmakers to back an expansive amnesty.
At the time, Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President Neil Bradley said it would be “unthinkable” not to give amnesty to illegal aliens.
Gonzalez has also received support and funding from Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), who has voted consistently in Congress since 2015 to import more cheap foreign workers to compete against Americans for blue-collar and white-collar U.S. jobs.
Gonzalez has been endorsed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) who famously authored the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill that would have legalized the majority of the 12 million to 30 million illegal aliens living in the U.S.
If elected, Hagan would be the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Chamber of Commerce exerts extraordinary influence in D.C.. Without an adequate
number of ICE agents, employers who violate the immigration laws go
undiscovered and unpunished. Additionally, all too many politicians
from both parties are globalists and all too many members of Congress are
lawyers. Some, in fact, are immigration lawyers who don’t see illegal
aliens as a problem but as clients for
their friends, or, perhaps for themselves when
they leave Congress and resume their legal practices. MICHALE CUTLER FRONTPAG MAG
ENEMIES OF THE
AMERICAN WORKER: The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce exerts extraordinary influence in D.C. Without an adequate number of
ICE agents, employers who violate the immigration laws go undiscovered and
unpunished. Many politicians are globalists and too many members of Congress
are lawyers. Some are immigration
lawyers who don’t see illegals as a problem but as clients for their friends or
themselves when they leave Congress and resume their legal practices. MICHAEL
CUTLER FRONTPAGE MAG
“By empowering this caravan, Mexico in
effect deploys kids as human shields for the violation of U.S. sovereignty. The
chief collaborators are Democrats seeking to import more voters. The leftist
Demexocrats thus confirm the need for the wall and border security.” --- LLOYD BILLINGSLEY FRONTPAGE MAG
Pro-Amnesty Chamber of Commerce Spending $300K Against ‘America First’ Christina Hagan in Ohio Race
The pro-amnesty for illegal aliens U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending $300,000 in Ohio’s 16th Congressional District race against populist conservative State Rep. Christina Hagan, who has committed to supporting President Trump’s “America First” agenda on immigration, trade, and foreign policy.
Hagan — endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), “Women For Trump,” and the anti-establishment House Freedom Caucus — is facing a tight race against Anthony Gonzalez, a former San Francisco resident who is raking in the cash from the Republican establishment, as well as the pro-amnesty Chamber of Commerce.
Most recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings reveal that the Chamber of Commerce is spending $300,000 in campaign ads in support of Gonzalez and against Hagan.
As Breitbart News has chronicled, the Chamber of Commerce has long opposed Trump’s “America First” agenda on immigration and trade, supporting an amnesty for illegal aliens and continued mass legal immigration where the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal immigrants every year.
This past year, the Chamber of Commerce infamously teamed up with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s open borders lobbying group, FWD.us, to bring illegal aliens to Capitol Hill to convince vulnerable lawmakers to back an expansive amnesty.
At the time, Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President Neil Bradley said it would be “unthinkable” not to give amnesty to illegal aliens.
Hagan has been opposed by the billionaire Koch brothers’ network of organizations, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Club for Growth, insiders tell Breitbart News, for her unapologetic support in cutting legal immigration and leveling out trade deals to raise American workers’ wages and bring U.S. jobs back to the country.
Meanwhile, Gonzalez has also received support and funding from Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), who has voted consistently in Congress since 2015 to import more cheap foreign workers to compete against Americans for blue-collar and white-collar U.S. jobs.
Gonzalez has been endorsed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) who famously authored the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill that would have legalized the majority of the 12 to 30 million illegal aliens living in the U.S.
The group “Women For Trump” most recently blasted Gonzalez and his support from the pro-amnesty big business lobby and the Republican establishment in a campaign ad:
The leading gubernatorial candidate in the Ohio governor’s race, Attorney General Mike DeWine, voted nearly 15 times to give amnesty to the majority of the 12 to 30 million illegal aliens living in the United States.
DeWine, who is being challenged by conservative Mary Taylor, serves as an Ohio Congressman and Senator throughout the 1990s and 2000s before becoming attorney general and now running for governor.
During his congressional tenure, DeWine voted to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens 14 times, as NumbersUSA notes. Between 2005 and 2006, alone, DeWine voted six times to give amnesty to illegal aliens.
In one vote for amnesty, DeWine supported an effort to give amnesty to at least three million illegal alien agricultural workers, a plan that would have immediately depressed wages for American farm workers.
When asked by Breitbart News about DeWine’s previous support for amnesty for illegal aliens, a spokesperson for the gubernatorial candidate avoided the question, saying “Mike DeWine supports building the wall, increasing border security and keeping Americans and Ohioans safe.”
As Breitbart News recently reported, DeWine ignored his record of supporting amnesty for illegal aliens by releasing an ad campaign where he claims to be fighting for President Trump’s “America First” immigration agenda.
“Only Mike DeWine is fighting for President Trump’s travel ban that will keep us safe and punishing illegal sanctuary cities,” the ad states.
Meanwhile, latest polls reveal that not only is DeWine’s support for amnesty for illegal aliens out of step with Ohio voters, but his support for increasing legal immigration is also counter to what voters want.
Among independents who voted for Trump in Ohio, 74 percent said they would like to see legal immigration — where the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal immigrants annually — cut to half a million a year or even lower. Likewise, 84 percent of Democrats who voted for Trump said the same.
Cuts to legal immigration is very popular with Ohio’s working-class and union workers, with 73 percent of voters without a college degree saying they want to see legal immigration at least slashed in half. Another 66 percent of unionized workers agreed.
Independents — regardless of whom they voted for in the 2016 presidential election — support cuts to legal immigration, with 58 percent agreeing with key tenants of the Trump-endorsed RAISE Act legislation which would reduce legal immigration levels to boost American workers’ wages.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
PARTNER WITH MEXICO, the LA RAZA DEMOCRAT PARTY and the PRO-BUSINESS GOP to keep wages for LEGALS depressed (today they are depressed to 1973 levels).
But you will still get the tax bills for the Mex welfare state and crime tidal wave!
“Illegal aliens are not supposed to work, and knowingly providing shelter for illegal aliens can be construed as harboring and shielding, elements of a felony under federal law, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324.”
“Where aliens and jobs are concerned, even many categories of non-immigrant aliens (temporary visitors) including aliens who lawfully enter under the Visa Waiver Program or with tourist visas may not work in the United States and immediately become subject to removal (deportation) if they seek gainful employment.” ----MICHAEL CUTLER – FRONTPAGE mag
Ohio Gubernatorial Candidate Mike DeWine Pushed Mass Immigration, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens in Congress
The leading gubernatorial candidate in the Ohio governor’s race, Attorney General Mike DeWine, has a long history of voting for mass immigration policies in Congress.
DeWine, who is being challenged by pro-American immigration reformer Mary Taylor, spent his time as a Senator and in Congress throughout the 1990s and 2000s voting for not only a continued flow of 1.5 million legal immigrants to the United States every year, but more legal immigration.
The organization NumbersUSA — which pushes for reductions to immigration to raise the wages of American workers — grades DeWine with a “D” grade for his voting record on the issue, noting that DeWine “usually supports higher immigration, population growth, foreign labor.”
For example, on the issue of “chain migration,” the process by which newly naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S., DeWine voted at least eight times while in Congress to either keep chain migration intact or increase the volume of immigration to the U.S.
Chain migration has imported about 9.3 million foreign nationals to the U.S. since 2005. In that same time period, a total of 13.06 million foreign nationals have entered the U.S. through the legal immigration system, as every seven out of ten new arrivals come to the country for no other purpose than to reunify with foreign relatives.
This makes chain migration the largest driver of immigration to the U.S. — making up more than 70 percent — with every two new immigrants bringing seven foreign relatives with them.
Most significantly, DeWine voted in favor of the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006,” which would have drastically increased the number of legal immigrants who would be able to come to the U.S. every year, further putting pressure on America’s working and middle class.
That same mass immigration legislation that DeWine supported would have also given amnesty to the majority of the 12 to 30 million illegal aliens living in the U.S.
Mary Taylor, DeWine’s opponent, recently ran an ad campaign blasting the attorney general for his votes to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
Taylor recently told Breitbart News’s Political Editor Matt Boyle in an exclusive interview that DeWine was backed by the Republican establishment, which opposes President Trump’s “America First” agenda of immigration reductionism, an end to unfair free trade deals, and less foreign intervention.
“DeWine is the good old boys establishment candidate, and the establishment in Columbus is getting really nervous because the polls have closed significantly, and they know conservatives are coming home, and conservatives will never vote for a liberal like Mike DeWine,” Taylor told Breitbart News.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
America builds the La Raza “The Race” Mexican welfare state
“In the U.S. the remittances that come of illegal immigration drive down U.S. wages, particularly of those on the lowest-skilled parts of the ladder, and as money flows out from local communities, leaves them under-invested and run-down. Nobody can live two places at once. Illegal immigrants live here but their money lives in Mexico. And it's often untaxed.” MONICA SHOWALTER
Charlie Daniels: We Need a Wall – But That’s Just the Beginning
When I was in the seventh grade in Wilmington, North Carolina, our class took field trips to local businesses and government entities, so the students could see our society in action.
We went to a laundry, a bakery, a session of court, and to the U.S. Customs building to a naturalization ceremony, where the immigrants had waited and studied for eight long years to become citizens of our nation.
These people had applied for citizenship and spent the last eight years learning about the country they so desperately wanted to become a part of. They learned the native language, studied the history and became immersed in our culture, laws and society.
By the time their eight-year waiting period had passed, they had not just a cursory knowledge of what America was all about but a firm understanding of what the privilege and blessing of becoming a legal citizen of the greatest nation the world has ever known is all about.
They assimilated into our culture, fought our wars, manned our labor forces and raised patriotic children, who repeated the process the next generation, and America became stronger and more prosperous because of their presence.
A few years ago, when my wife had to have back surgery, we met a brilliant surgeon who had migrated to America, and his citizenship application had reached fruition when 9/11 came along. And he had to start all over again, another eight years of waiting for this brilliant young man who would add a great deal to this nation’s medical capabilities to become a citizen.
And his is not an isolated case. There were many others who went through the same thing and had to start their application process from the ground up again, even knowing that they had already been qualified for citizenship. Such was their desire to become an American that they were willing, without media complaints or street protests, to go back to the tail of the line that would double their waiting period to sixteen years.
If we would listen to vote-greedy politicians, Hispanic pressure groups and mainstream media, they would have you believe that all the people who cross our southern border with Mexico have to do is step across the international border and declare their fear of the country they are leaving, be granted asylum, agree to show up at an immigration hearing at a date in the future, which about 90 percent of them never do, and at some time in the future they will be granted citizenship.
This process defeats the reason for even having a border and immigration requirements and is completely and totally unfair to all the applicants from hundreds of other countries, who make their request, wait their turn and go through the legal process of naturalization.
There is a grand scheme going on here, a dirty one, that, unimpeded, will completely destroy the checks and balances of the election process and put the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in the elective offices, the court appointments and public policy decision making ad infinitum.
Eventually – if Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, et al, have their way – the Hispanics will be the largest voting bloc in America, and simply by the act of dancing with those who brought them, will elect the candidates promising the most lavish social programs, and by virtue of doing so, be creating the same monolithic power block and impossible fiscal dilemma of the nations they are running from.
The double standard of justice you see playing out on the national scene now would become the norm, as the fix would be permanently in for those in power.
Example: Do you think that these crooked and illegal actions taken by those in the FBI and the Justice Department would have been exposed if Hillary Clinton had been elected?
I submit to you that they would not have, and so sure were the parties involved that she would win, that they became cocky and arrogant, not covering their steps and leaving loose ends to be pulled on and exposed.
I believe that if Hillary had been elected she would have found a way to give amnesty and eventually citizenship to all the millions of Hispanics who are now here illegally and would have, in theory, have opened the border so that more and more could cross and be eligible to vote, until an undefeatable voting block would have been created, putting a more and more progressive electorate into power.
There would have been no tax reform, more regulations would have forced more and more manufacturers out of the country, until America and the quality of life were reduced to an over-taxed, over regulated, under-defended, unarmed nation, where a broke and totally inefficient central government tells everybody when to jump and how high.
We’ve seen the lengths the power-hungry in Washington will go to destroy the innocent and protect the guilty, and in doing so, they have forever stained some of our most venerable and respected government entities.
We definitely need a wall, but that’s just the beginning, we need to know how many people are in this country illegally, what they’re up to and declare a grace period for all the undocumented to come forth and be counted and deal with them accordingly.
Anything less is insanity to anybody but an unethical politician.
What do you think?
Pray for our troops, our police and the peace of Jerusalem.
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels is a legendary American singer, song writer, guitarist, and fiddler famous for his contributions to country and southern rock music. Daniels has been active as a singer since the early 1950s. He was inducted into the Grand Ole Opry on January 24, 2008.
Maybe if California and New York Cared as Much about the Middle Class as They Do About Illegal Alien…
Economists Arthur Laffer (the guy with the famous curve) and Stephen Moore, a leading libertarian voice for mass immigration, predict that some 800,000 people will pack up and leave California and New York over the next three years. The reason they cite for the exodus in their Wall Street Journal op-ed is that the new federal tax law, which eliminates deductions for state income taxes, will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Implicit in their assignment of blame to the federal tax overhaul is that the people who will be leaving are the ones who pay taxes – the sort of folks that state and local governments rely to provide a revenue stream. As such, one would think that these would be the people whose concerns would get a lot of interest in Sacramento and Albany. But clearly that is not the case.
For the privilege of living in places like the Bay Area, Los Angeles, or New York City, you must bear some of the most ridiculous housing costs in the nation, along with crushing state and local taxes. In California, be prepared to turn over as much as 13.3 percent of your income to the state. High-earning New Yorkers fork over a more modest 8.82 percent, but if you live in the five boroughs you can tack on an additional 3.87 percent in city income taxes. California and New York also have some of the highest sales tax rates in the country at 8.54 percent and 8.49 percent respectively (and higher in many cities). And now, as Laffer and Moore point out, you can’t even deduct those costs on your federal taxes.
One might also think that for all these state and local taxes, residents could expect the most modern infrastructure, efficient public transportation, world class public schools, affordable housing, and other amenities. Ha. No, in Sacramento and Albany they prioritize an ever-growing list of public benefits and services to immigration law violators; subsidies and grants to go to college, and legal aid for illegal aliens in deportation proceedings. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is even threatening to sue the federal government (with taxpayer money, of course) for even trying to enforce immigration laws.
Cutting back on benefits and protections for illegal aliens would not solve all of these states’ problems, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt. In the meantime, every U-Haul packing up a middle or upper-middle class family headed out of California and New York represents a loss of vital revenue necessary to address myriad needs of both citizens and legal immigrants.
Steinle’s murderer, Jose Zarate and been deported 5xs!
How the Golden State defies immigration law ‘I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” That was President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s intention to prevent enforcement of a federal law within the state. Despite his admiration for Jackson, President Trump hasn’t yet threatened to start hanging California politicians. But that state’s “sanctuary” policies protecting illegal immigrants and obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law echo the long-ago fight over nullification and states’ rights.
The passage of three sanctuary bills last year by the state legislature in Sacramento is now the subject of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was the culmination of a decades-long process, as mass immigration transformed California’s politics from reddish purple to deep blue. The first measure that could be described as a sanctuary provision was the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order 40, enacted in 1979, which prohibited officers from arresting a person for the federal crime of illegal entry and, unless he was arrested for another crime, from even inquiring as to legal status. But that order merely instructed police to abstain from involving themselves in immigration enforcement. In the 1980s, a more proactive conception of illegal-alien sanctuary spread, as Central Americans fleeing war in their homelands snuck into the U.S. but did not qualify for asylum. At first, only some pro-Sandinista churches postured as sanctuaries for these illegal aliens. But in late 1985, Mayor (now Senator) Dianne Feinstein signed a resolution declaring San Francisco a “city of refuge” for illegals. She ordered that “City Departments shall not discriminate against Salvadorans and Guatemalan refugees because of their immigration status, and shall not jeopardize the safety and welfare of law-abiding refugees by acting in a way that may cause their deportation.” The declaration was followed four years later by a city law formally prohibiting city employees from assisting federal immigration authorities. Even measures such as this, which were adopted by other big cities over the years, were of largely local interest until a new system, developed at the end of the Bush administration and completed in 2013, went online. The fingerprints of every person booked by police throughout the country have long been sent to the FBI. But under the new system, dubbed Secure Communities, those fingerprints now also go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). So while in the past the feds didn’t necessarily know whether cops in San Francisco arrested an illegal alien for, say, a drug offense, now they do. Every time. There will still be some illegal aliens who elude detection if ICE has no record of them because they’ve never interacted with the immigration authorities. But if police arrest anyone who’s in the Department of Homeland Security database — who was deported previously, got turned down for asylum, was picked up by the Border Patrol, overstayed a visa, or appeared before an immigration judge — ICE learns about it. There are only so many hours in the day, so not every arrested illegal alien can be taken into custody. But if ICE wants the alien because, for instance, he has previously been deported or is a fugitive from a deportation order, it notifies the local authorities to hold him, as they would for any other state or federal law-enforcement agency, up to 48 hours after they would otherwise have released him, so that agents can collect and deport him. With this new fingerprint-matching system in place, instead of receiving the occasional hold notice, or “detainer,” cities and counties with large numbers of immigrants started hearing from ICE constantly. In some states where large-scale immigration was a recent development, the political culture had not yet shifted to the left to such a degree that this new level of cooperation with ICE met objections. But immigration, legal and illegal, has transformed California’s population and political culture so profoundly that the pushback there was inevitable. Of California’s 40 million people, about 15 million are in immigrant households (immigrants and their children under 18), accounting for more than 37 percent of the state’s population. Not only is that by far the highest percentage in any state, but the increase in people in immigrant households in California from 1970 to today — just the increase — is nearly twice as large as today’s total population in immigrant households in Texas, the state in second place. Survey after survey shows that immigrants are disproportionately big-government liberals. As one overview of the data concluded, “solid and persistent majorities of Hispanic and Asian immigrants and their children share the policy preferences of the modern American Left.” As a result, as University of Maryland political scientist James Gimpel has demonstrated, in the nation’s largest counties (which are where immigrants tend to settle), “Republicans have lost 0.58 percentage points in presidential elections for every one percentage-point increase in the size of the local immigrant population.” The results in California are plain to see. There hasn’t been a Republican in statewide or federal office since Arnold Schwarzenegger (and he was only nominally Republican). Only 13 of 40 state senators and 25 of 80 state assemblymen are Republicans. This has enabled leftist maximalism on a wide range of issues, including immigration. Even in this environment, the effects of Secure Communities in identifying deportable aliens were blunted for a time by the Obama administration’s lax policies. Despite the anti-borders Left and its kabuki protests that Obama was the deporter in chief, his administration effectively exempted most of the resident illegal population from immigration law. Even though ICE continued to be notified of arrested illegals, administration policy was to ignore all but the worst cases. In the words of John Sandweg, who headed ICE during part of Obama’s term, “If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it’s just highly unlikely to happen.” Then came Donald Trump. It wasn’t just that Trump pledged tough immigration enforcement in his raw and often coarse manner. It wasn’t just that Hillary Clinton, who said publicly that she would not deport anyone who hadn’t first been convicted of a violent felony, won California by 30 points. It was the whiplash from Obama to Trump that supercharged the sanctuary push in the state legislature. Democratic politicians, their activist allies, and illegal aliens themselves had gotten used to Obama’s arrangements and had come to think that was the way things were going to be from now on. Trump’s reversal of Obama’s laxity fell on them like a bucket of ice water. The state took a variety of steps in response to the return of immigration enforcement. Lawmakers appropriated $45 million for a fund to help illegals fight deportation. And the state senate appointed an illegal alien to a state education commission. But most consequential were three laws designed to limit the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law. The best known is Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, the most sweeping measure of its kind in the nation, making the entire state a sanctuary for illegal aliens. It prohibits state and local law enforcement from complying with ICE detainers in most cases. It prohibits notification to ICE about an alien unless in the past 15 years he’s been convicted of one of a list of the most serious crimes. It prohibits state and local authorities from allowing ICE to use space in their jails and from providing ICE any non-public information on suspects. It restricts state and local participation in any multi-agency task force that includes ICE. The second of the three measures attempts to impose state oversight on any facility ICE uses to detain deportable aliens. And the final law seeks to shield illegal-alien workers from detection by, among other things, prohibiting private employers from voluntarily allowing ICE agents into any non-public area of their business. The Trump administration has pushed back. The first step was to threaten to cut off certain Justice Department grants to sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide; longstanding doctrine limiting the withholding of federal funds to coerce states makes a broader cutoff unlikely. A few jurisdictions outside California have changed their sanctuary policies in response to the funding threat, but the administration’s initiative is tied up in litigation and, in any case, is unlikely to hurt sufficiently to persuade hard cases such as California to mend their ways. That’s why in March the Justice Department filed suit against California to strike down all or parts of the three sanctuary laws, claiming that they were preempted by federal law and that they violate the supremacy clause of the Constitution. (Interestingly, the complaint cites, among other things, the Supreme Court ruling overturning parts of Arizona’s SB 1070, which was intended to assist in enforcement of federal immigration laws, on the same grounds of federal preemption.) But it will be a long time before the case reaches the Supreme Court; the defendants no doubt hope to drag things out long enough that President Maxine Waters or Dennis Kucinich can reverse the policy. But change may come sooner than that. The legislature’s overreach has sparked a rebellion of communities seeking sanctuary from the sanctuary law. The small Orange County city of Los Alamitos got things rolling by voting to opt out of SB 54 and join the federal lawsuit. A growing list of other cities has joined the suit as well, as have Orange and San Diego counties. More cities and counties are likely to join them. In an attempt to harness this political energy, two people whose children were killed by illegal aliens have launched a ballot initiative to repeal the sanctuary laws. Don Rosenberg, one of the parents, told the Washington Times , “This will be David versus Goliath. We’re clearly David on this side. But there are millions of Davids here.” While the steady stream of preventable crimes by illegal immigrants protected by sanctuary policies keeps the issue before the public, the very extremism of the Left may supply the five smooth stones this army of Davids will need to slay the sanctuary Goliath. In February, for example, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf warned illegals that an ICE raid was planned for the Bay Area. Such brazen acts delegitimize sanctuary policies in the eyes even of moderate voters. South Carolina eventually repealed its Ordinance of Nullification. The state’s subsequent acts of resistance against legitimate federal authority also failed. It’s too early to tell whether California will succeed where South Carolina did not.
Coming soon: Mass exodus from NY, CA due to high taxes
Arthur Laffer and Steven Moore have penned an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that gauges the impact of the cap on state tax deductions in high tax states.
Their conclusions should frighten high-tax, big-spending liberals in blue states across the country.
In the years to come, millions of people, thousands of businesses, and tens of billions of dollars of net income will flee high-tax blue states for low-tax red states. This migration has been happening for years. But the Trump tax bill's cap on the deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT, will accelerate the pace. The losers will be most of the Northeast, along with California. The winners are likely to be states like Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
For years blue states have exported a third or more of their tax burden to residents of other states. In places like California, where the top income-tax rate exceeds 13%, that tax could be deducted on a federal return. Now that deduction for state and local taxes will be capped at $10,000 per family.
Consider what this means if you're a high-income earner in Silicon Valley or Hollywood. The top tax rate that you actually pay just jumped from about 8.5% to 13%. Similar figures hold if you live in Manhattan, once New York City's income tax is factored in. If you earn $10 million or more, your taxes might increase a whopping 50%.
About 90% of taxpayers are unaffected by the change. But high earners in places with hefty income taxes – not just California and New York, but also Minnesota and New Jersey – will bear more of the true cost of their state government. Also in big trouble are Connecticut and Illinois, where the overall state and local tax burden (especially property taxes) is so onerous that high-income residents will feel the burn now that they can't deduct these costs on their federal returns. On the other side are nine states – including Florida, Nevada, Texas and Washington – that impose no tax at all on earned income.
The authors put their finger on the real meaning of SALT: it prevents the rest of us from subsidizing the blue state model. By making rich taxpayers in blue states bear the true cost of all those goodies given out by their state governments, those living in low-tax red states will no longer subsidize the irresponsible spending habits in blue states.
Now that the SALT subsidy is gone, how bad will it get for high-tax blue states? Very bad. We estimate, based on the historical relationship between tax rates and migration patterns, that both California and New York will lose on net about 800,000 residents over the next three years – roughly twice the number that left from 2014-16. Our calculations suggest that Connecticut, New Jersey and Minnesota combined will hemorrhage another roughly 500,000 people in the same period.
Red states ought to brace themselves: The Yankees are coming, and they are bringing their money with them. Meanwhile, the exodus could puncture large and unexpected holes in blue-state budgets. Lawmakers in Hartford and Trenton have gotten a small taste of this in recent years as billionaire financiers have flown the coop and relocated to Florida. As the migration speeds up, it will raise real-estate values in low-tax states and hurt them in high-tax states.
We are the most mobile society in the history of industrialized civilization. The fact that we are a federal republic with fifty individual state governments makes choosing a place to live more than just a preference for climate or scenery. High taxes generally bring with them a higher cost of living, urban decay, crime, and a lack of economic opportunity.
So Americans are voting with their feet. And in this competition, it's no contest.
California’s Rich May Leave to Avoid $12 Billion in SALT Tax Hit
President Donald Trump’s new tax cut, which limiting state and local tax deductions, will cost rich Californians $12 billion more in federal taxes, with $9 billion coming from those making $1 million or more.
Recently, the California Department of Finance reported good news for Sacramento politicians: thanks largely to having the top state income tax bracket in the nation at 13.3 percent, California collected about $3.3 billion more in state taxes than forecast in the first three months of 2018, with 67 percent coming from higher than expected personal income taxes.
But the California Franchise Tax Board also warned that the Trump tax cut, which limits state and local tax (SALT) deductions to a maximum of $10,000, will cost same high income earners $12 billion a year more in federal tax.
The bigger tax bite could also be strong motivation for California’s highest income earners to vote with their feet and leave California to save big bucks in a low tax state.
Maine is second to California with a top income tax rate of 10.15 percent, followed by Oregon’s 9.9 percent. But Nevada, Washington, Texas and Florida have no state income tax.
Only about 61,000 households, or 0.4 percent, of the 16 million households in California reported an income of more than $1 million in 2014. But the CalMatters blog commented that of the 40 million residents in California, the top 150,000 that are in the top 1 percent of income earners pay about half of all state income taxes.
California taxpayers may already be voting with their feet, according to an analysis by CNBC. The business news team found that from 2016 to 2017, California saw a net 138,000 people leave the state, while Texas grew by 79,000 people, Arizona added 63,000 residents, and Nevada saw a 38,000 gain.
The Republican Governors’ Association was quick to observe: “California Democrats imposing massive tax hikes on middle-class families, driving up their state’s cost of living, residents are packing their bags and leaving for states run by GOP governors like Arizona, Nevada, and Texas with lower tax burdens and friendlier business climates.”
Adios, Sanctuary La Raza Welfare State of 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.
BLOG: MANY DISPUTE CALIFORNIA’S EXPENDITURES FOR THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE IN MEXIFORNIA JUST AS THEY DISPUTE THE NUMBER OF ILLEGALS. APPROXIMATELY HALF THE POPULATION OF CA IS NOW MEXICAN AND BREEDING ANCHOR BABIES FOR WELFARE LIKE BUNNIES. THE $22 BILLION IS STATE EXPENDITURE ONLY. COUNTIES PAY OUT MORE WITH LOS ANGELES COUNTY LEADING AT OVER A BILLION DOLLARS PAID OUT YEARLY TO MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS. NOW MULTIPLY THAT BY THE NUMBER OF COUNTIES IN CA AND YOU START TO GET AN IDEA OF THE STAGGERING WELFARE STATE MEXICO AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAVE ERECTED SANS ANY LEGALS VOTES. ADD TO THIS THE FREE ENTERPRISE HOSPITAL AND CLINIC COST FOR LA RAZA’S “FREE” MEDICAL WHICH IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT $1.5 BILLION PER YEAR.
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.
"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the US Senate, there is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement will emerge. Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant civil rights and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new political party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow and that is to elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan." 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.
California used to be home to America's largest and most affluent middle class. Today, it is America's poverty capital. What went wrong? In a word: immigration.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Official Poverty Measure, California's poverty rate hovers around 15 percent. But this figure is misleading: the Census Bureau measures poverty relative to a uniform national standard, which doesn't account for differences in living costs between states – the cost of taxes, housing, and health care are higher in California than in Oklahoma, for example. Accounting for these differences reveals that California's real poverty rate is 20.6 percent – the highest in America, and nearly twice the national average of 12.7 percent.
Likewise, income inequality in California is the second-highest in America, behind only New York. In fact, if California were an independent country, it would be the 17th most unequal country on Earth, nestled comfortably between Honduras and Guatemala. Mexico is slightly more egalitarian. California is far more unequal than the "social democracies" it emulates: Canada is the 111th most unequal nation, while Norway is far down the list at number 153 (out of 176 countries). In terms of income inequality, California has more in common with banana republics than other "social democracies."
More Government, More Poverty
High taxes, excessive regulations, and a lavish welfare state – these are the standard explanations for California's poverty epidemic. They have some merit. For example, California has both the highest personal income tax rate and the highest sales tax in America, according to Politifact.
Not only are California's taxes high, but successive "progressive" governments have swamped the state in a sea of red tape. Onerous regulations cripple small businesses and retard economic growth. Kerry Jackson, a fellow with the Pacific Research Institute, gives a few specific examples of how excessive government regulation hurts California's poor. He writes in a recent op-ed for the Los Angeles Times:
Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor. By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics ... found that "in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced ... energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income."
Some government regulation is necessary and desirable, but most of California's is not. There is virtue in governing with a "light touch."
Finally, California's welfare state is, perhaps paradoxically, a source of poverty in the state. The Orange Country Register reports that California's social safety net is comparable in scale to those found in Europe:
In California a mother with two children under the age of 5 who participates in these major welfare programs – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), housing assistance, home energy assistance, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children – would receive a benefits package worth $30,828 per year.
... [Similar] benefits in Europe ranged from $38,588 per year in Denmark to just $1,112 in Romania. The California benefits package is higher than in well-known welfare states as France ($17,324), Germany ($23,257) and even Sweden ($22,111).
Although welfare states ideally help the poor, reality is messy. There are three main problems with the welfare state. First, it incentivizes poverty by rewardingthe poor with government handouts that are often far more valuable than a job. This can be ameliorated to some degree by imposing work requirements on welfare recipients, but in practice, such requirements are rarely imposed. Second, welfare states are expensive. This means higher taxes and therefore slower economic growth and fewer job opportunities for everyone – including the poor.
Finally, welfare states are magnets for the poor. Whether through domestic migration or foreign immigration, poor people flock to places with generous welfare states. This is logical from the immigrant's perspective, but it makes little sense from the taxpayer's. This fact is why socialism and open borders arefundamentally incompatible.
Why Big Government?
Since 1960, California's population exploded from 15.9 to 39 million people. The growth was almost entirely due to immigration – many people came from other states, but the majority came from abroad. The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that 10 million immigrants currently reside in California. This works out to 26 percent of the state's population.
BLOG: COME TO MEXIFORNIA! HALF OF LOS ANGELES 15 MILLION ARE ILLEGALS!
This figure includes 2.4 million illegal aliens, although a recent study from Yale University suggests that the true number of aliens is at least double that. Modifying the initial figure implies that nearly one in three Californians is an immigrant. This is not to disparage California's immigrant population, but it is madness to deny that such a large influx of people has changed California's society and economy.
Importantly, immigrants vote Democrat by a ratio higher than 2:1, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies. In California, immigration has increased the pool of likely Democrat voters by nearly 5 million people, compared to just 2.4 million additional likely Republican voters. Not only does this almost guarantee Democratic victories, but it also shifts California's political midpoint to the left. This means that to remain competitive in elections, the Republicans must abandon or soften many conservative positions so as to cater to the center.
California became a Democratic stronghold not because Californians became socialists, but because millions of socialists moved there. Immigration turned California blue, and immigration is ultimately to blame for California's high poverty level.
Leftists are relentlessly selling their bogus narrative that Trump is insane. Here are samples of leftists' headlines: "Lawmakers Met With Psychiatrist About Trump's Mental Health," "President Trump's Mental State An 'Enormous Present Danger,'" "The Awkward Debate Around Trump's Mental Fitness," "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists Assess."
So what has Trump done to convince leftists that he must be crazy? Unlike Republicans, Trump fearlessly confronts fake news media, calling them out when they lie. Unlike Obama's punish-evil-America-first presidency, Trump has America's best interest at heart. Unlike leftists seeking to dissolve our borders, Trump plans to build a wall to protect our people and our economy. Insanely, leftists cheered when Obama allowed Ebola into America, claiming it was racist and unfair for Americans not to be subjected to the disease. Unlike Obama, Hillary, Democrats, and fake news media's war on Christianity (forcing a 100-year-old order of Catholic nuns to fund contraception and forcing Christian businesses to service same-sex ceremonies), Trump vows to defend religious liberty.
So I guess, according to leftists' perverse way of thinking, that Trump must be crazy, along with the 63 million Americans who voted for him.
Meanwhile, leftists are ignoring glaring reasons to question the sanity of California's governor, Jerry Brown. The entire country is talking about the collapse of California due to decades of insane liberal policies. And what is Governor Brown's response? He implemented hundreds more destructive liberal rules, regulations, and giveaways to illegals. An article listing the top ten stupidest new California laws includes "Single-User Restrooms," "Controlling Cow Flatulence," "Legalizing Child Prostitution," and "Felons Voting."
Governor Brown signed a new law making California a sanctuary state, doubling down on his bizarre quest to undermine American citizens. In essence, Brown gave federal law, President Trump, and legal California residents his middle finger. Numerous California families have suffered devastating losses of family members killed by illegals with long felony records who have been deported several times and welcomed back with open arms by Brown. One mom whose son was killed by an illegal with two DUIs and two felonies said Brown should be arrested for treason. Isn't it reasonable to question Brown's sanity?
Insanely, three fourths of California's taxpayer dollars – more than $30 billion – is spent on illegal aliens. Meanwhile, despite the highest taxes in the nation, California is $1.3 trillion in debt – unemployment is at a staggering 11%. California's wacko giveaways to illegals include in-state tuition, amounting to $25 million of financial aid. Nearly a million illegals have California driver's licenses. L.A. County has 144% more registered voters than there are residents of legal voting age. Clearly, illegals are illegally voting.
Get this, folks: Americans are spending almost a billion dollars a year on auto insurance for illegals. Brown is gifting illegals billions in welfare and housing while his constituents cannot find a place to live.
Ten years ago, a buddy of mine excitedly moved his family from Maryland to California to accept the highest-paying job of his career. Despite his lucrative salary, he was forced to move back east due to the outrageously high cost of living. My buddy said if he were an illegal, practically everything would be free. His story inspired me to write and record a Beach Boys-style song titled "Can't Afford the Sunshine."
Once again, I ask you, folks: would a rational governor do what Brown is doing to his constituents? Is Governor Jerry Brown mentally ill?
Earlier this week on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” host Laura Ingraham slammed California and its leaders for its sanctuary city policies and its open defiance of the federal government seeking to uphold existing immigration law.
Transcript as follows:
INGRAHAM: The radical takeover of California, that’s the focus of tonight’s ANGLE.
I still remember the first time I traveled to Southern California, it was the summer of 1984 and Los Angeles is hosting the Olympics. Reagan was president and Republican George (inaudible) was the state’s governor. Now, he was a moderate conservative, a law and order kind of guy.
The whole place, to me at least, felt like a Beach Boy song, the weather, the people, the lifestyle was all, you know, beautiful stuff. But today, the sunshine not with understanding, California is a very different place. It’s now a place where state officials actively thwart federal authorities trying to stop violent criminal offenders.
Oakland’s mayor, Libby Schaaf, went so far as to issue a warning to immigrant communities that an ICE raid was forthcoming. Well, the president sounded off on that today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What the mayor of Oakland did the other day was a disgrace where they had close to 1,000 people ready to be gotten, ready to be taken off the streets. Many of them, they say 85 percent of them were criminals and had criminal records, and the mayor of Oakland went out and she went out and warned them all, scatter.
So instead of taking in a thousand, they took in a fraction of that. She said get out of here. She is telling that to criminals and it’s certainly something that we are looking at with respect to her individually. What she did is incredible and very dangerous from the standpoint of ICE and Border Patrol, very dangerous. She really made law enforcement much more dangerous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Now, for her part, Mayor Schaaf is deflecting that criticism and she is going straight to the r-word.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF, OAKLAND: The attorney general is trying to distract the American people from a failed immigration system by painting a racist, broad brush of our immigrant community as dangerous criminals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Now who is mentioning skin color or ethnicity or where people are from. That’s just pathetic. California, the way you see this playing out, is almost acting like it’s a separate country all together, not a separate state. Well, I think Attorney General Jeff Sessions was 100 percent correct yesterday when he labeled state officials radical extremists for perpetuating the lawlessness.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JFFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Federal law determines immigration policy. State of California is not entitled to block that activity. Somebody needs to stand up and say no, you’ve gone too far. You cannot do this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: But California AG Javier Becerra shot back. He argued that the state sanctuary laws are constitutional adding our folks are very busy doing public safety around the state. We don’t have to do the immigration work for immigration officials. Excuse me. Public safety?
Well, that’s what we are supposed to believe when your own Oakland mayor warned the illegal aliens ahead of time when she got wind of the ice raid that was about to happen? Today, the White House released a partial list of the crimes committed set free despite the lawful request of immigration authorities. Check it out.
There is a Guatemalan citizen who was arrested last august for injuring his spouse. While the Sonoma County jail provided ice with a whopping 24 minutes in the before it released the alien. A few weeks later, the Santa Rosa Police Department in California arrested that same individual as a suspect in the murder of his girlfriend.
Another Guatemalan, an alleged gang member was arrested by the San Francisco police more than 10 times between 2013 and 2017 for charges including rape, domestic battery, second degree robbery, assault, vehicle theft, and on each occasion, what happened was ice requested notification of his release so then ice could take him into custody.
Each time ICE’s request was declined by California. And then a citizen of Mexico was arrested by Santa Clara County for drug possession on January 11th, 2017. He was later convicted of child cruelty, felony possession purchase of controlled substances and, of course, possession of marijuana. He was released from local custody.
The list goes on and on. And we could literally do an entire show just on the myriad ways that California sanctuary policies have endangered the lives of innocent, law abiding citizens. And, of course, law enforcement and, of course, legal immigrants.
California AG Becerra and Governor Moon Beam Brown are living in alternative universe. They deny that they even have sanctuary laws in place. Yet, here’s what their new statutes stipulate. In violation of federal statutes, local officials cannot tell the feds when illegals in custody are about to be released.
And they are banned under this law from transferring criminal immigrants to federal officials. Now, we are talking about undocumented criminals here. And the state of California is also so concerned about the welfare of the illegal immigrants, that they imposed a state-run inspection of immigrants detained by the federal government.
So, basically, they are trying to regulate federal immigration detention and, perhaps most outrageously, one California law now requires private business owners to — they can’t voluntarily cooperate with ICE agents. Now, in fact, they have to notify illegal employees before any workplace inspections take place or those private business owners face heavy fines.
Now, you cannot get more radical and rapidly open borders than that. Though California officials are triggered over the sessions’ lawsuit, it may be, may be the beginning of restoring some sanity to this state.
Republicans, let’s face it, largely have been shut out of California politics now for years u and we are a very long way from the days when Pete Wilson was governor back in the 1990s. Permissive liberal social welfare policies and the embrace of illegal immigrants have plunged the state into a spiral of homelessness.
It’s now at a crisis point declared by San Francisco and Los Angeles and even Orange County. We reported on this before is grappling with homeless encampments and the crime and health issues that come along with them. This is not what the people of California want. How do I know that?
Well, a UC Berkeley poll just found that 74 percent of Californians wanted to end sanctuary cities including 55 percent of Hispanics, and 73 percent of Democrats. Now, if that’s not a cry for sanity or a cry for help, I do not know what is.
Sessions and the Trump administration are throwing the golden state a lifeline with these sanctuary lawsuits because if they’re successful, perhaps the good vibrations, political and otherwise, can roll through California once again. And that’s THE ANGLE.
By Wayne Allyn Root
California is Exhibit A. It’s filled with immigrants. Ten million to be exact. Many of them illegal. Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California- where nearly one out of five residents is poor. That’s according to the Census Bureau.
While California accounts for 12% of America’s population, it accounts for one third of America’s welfare checks. California leads the country in food stamp use. California has more people on welfare than most countries around the world. . . . If immigration is so great for our country and illegal aliens “contribute a net positive” to society…how do you explain what’s happening in California?
I haven’t even gotten to the taxes. The income taxes, business taxes, sales taxes and gas taxes are all the highest in the nation. Why do you think that is? To pay the enormous costs of illegal immigration. To pay for the education costs, healthcare costs, police, courts, lawyers, prisons, and hundreds of different welfare programs for millions of California’s illegal aliens and struggling legal immigrants too.
But you haven’t heard the worst yet. California- the immigrant capital of America- is filthy. Perhaps the filthiest place on earth. Filthier than the slums of Calcutta. Filthier than the poorest slums of Brazil and Africa.
NBC journalists recently conducted a survey of San Francisco. They found piles of smelly garbage on the streets, used needles, gallons of urine and piles of feces- all near famous tourist attractions, fancy hotels, government buildings and children’s playgrounds.
Silicon Valley investors, including Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg, are joining the Koch network’s push for a quick amnesty that would also keep the issue of cheap-labor immigration out of the November election.
But the push by Zuckerberg’s FWD.us investor group quickly hit a roadblock Thursday when Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy denounced the “discharge petition” amnesty plan, which is fronted by California GOP Rep. Jeff Denham.
“I don’t believe discharge petitions are the way to legislate,” McCarthy said to The Hill. “I don’t believe members in the [GOP] conference believe that, either.”
McCarthy’s opposition — and the growing pressure for a quick exit by retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan — opens up room for GOP legislators to make the November election all about rising wages vs. cheap-labor immigration. Numerous polls show that more than 70 percent of Americans want companies to hire Americans before importing more cheap-labor immigrants, and numerous business groups say they need more imported labor as wages begin to rise.
But a quick Zuckerberg amnesty would prevent President Donald Trump or GOP leaders from running on an immigration reform platform in November — and would also deflate economic pressure that is delivering higher wages before the 2018 election. “It would be the dumbest thing possible for Republicans to do coming election which they already think they may lose — they would for sure lose with this,” said Rosemary Jenks, the director of governmental affairs at NumbersUSA. She continued:
I don’t think they will [shift to immigration, but] … it would be a surefire way to keep the majority. People in Washington talk about [election-winning] ’70 percent issues’ … [and] this is it, this is the 70 percent issue.
Backed by Zuckerberg’s FWD.us, Denham is collecting GOP signatures for a resolution that would urge a so-called “Queen of the Hill” debate on the House floor. In that very rare form of debate, legislators could debate several alternative immigration bills, and the most popular proposal would be sent to the Senate
Those rules would almost guarantee a big win for Zuckerberg and his allies because nearly all Democrats and many business-first Republicans — including many who are retiring this year — will support a no-strings “Clean Dream Act” amnesty for at least 1.8 million younger ‘DACA’ illegals.
Denham claims to have 50 GOP legislators backing his resolution, but those GOP members have not signed the needed “discharge petition” which allows 218 cooperating legislators to force the debate despite opposition from the Speaker of the House. Many of Denham’s supporters don’t recognize the impact of Denham’s plan, said Jenks, and “when they find out, they are not going to be happy and will certainly not sign the discharge.”’
Denham’s office did not respond to questions from Breitbart News.
McCarthy’s quick opposition to Denham’s push is critical because he is the likely replacement for exiting House Speaker Paul Ryan. Without McCarthy’s support for the immigration push, few of the GOP legislators on Denham’s resolution will sign the needed discharge petition — even though many will use their support for the resolution to ingratiate themselves with their donors and pro-amnesty voters.
Denham’s resolution is getting expensive media support from the various donors who are working under cover of the Koch advocacy network, which has at least 550 business donors. On April 17. Daniel Garza, the president of the Koch-funded LIBRE Initiative, told Business Insider:
The American people deserve a government that is effective and efficient in solving our nation’s problems.
Congress and the White House have spent a lot of time talking about DACA, but today our elected officials have yet to approve a permanent legislative solution. The Dreamers are among our best and brightest. They are students, workers, and men and women risking their lives in the Armed Forces. Washington must come together and approve a bipartisan solution that provides certainty for Dreamers and security improvements along our border.
Zuckerberg’s FWD.us advocacy group is also providing direct support for the Denham push, and it touted Wednesday’s press conference where Denham was flanked by a few other cheap-labor Republicans — Texas Rep. Will Hurd, Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman and California Rep. David Valadao – as well as the Democratic head of the Hispanic ethnic lobby, new Mexico Democrat Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham.
NOW and NEW: 50 Republicans join over 180 Republicans for the “Queen of the Hill” Rule to try to force a debate/series of votes for Dreamers.
The group has endorsed multiple bills and amnesties which would raise the supply of white-collar labor and also block Donald Trump’s populist “Buy American, Hire American” policies, all of which will tend to raise Americans’ blue-collar wages and white-collar salaries. In February, FWD.us joined with many other business groups to help the Senate block Trump’s popular immigration reforms.
Since Trump’s election, the FWD.us group has used the relatively few college-grad ‘DACA’ illegals to shift the political focus from Trump’s very popular wages-for-Americans pitch. That diversionary tactic has worked, partly because most establishment reporters prefer to focus on the concerns of foreign migrants rather than the concerns of fellow Americans.
However, Republicans are facing a tough 2018 election and may decide to pick up the issue up the popular issue of immigration and wages, especially if McCarthy replacesHouse Speaker Paul Ryan before the election.
Also, a series of 2018 polls and surveys show that GOP voters believe the immigration issue is far more important than celebrating tax cuts.
Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market. But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting roughly 1.1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.