When Biden took office, one of his first acts was the elimination of our border security. Like a power-hungry dictator, Biden simply decided to ignore our immigration laws. His catastrophic border policy resulted in untold millions of unidentified foreign citizens from around the world pouring into our country. Its impact is now being felt in cities across the country. The worst is yet to come. PETER LEMISKA - AND WE'RE ALREADY THERE!!!
Saturday, June 29, 2019
THE GLOBALIST LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY REDEFINES AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.... Anyone who jumps our borders and jobs1
The 2020 Democratic Candidates and Their Redefinition of American Citizenship By Jim Geraghty
New citizens stand during a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) naturalization ceremony at the New York Public Library, July
3, 2018.
Making the click-through worthwhile: How the 2020 Democratic
presidential candidates want to make being an American citizen simply a matter
of location and desire, instead of law; another allegation of hideous behavior
from Donald Trump from the mid 1990s; the promised big roundup of thriller
novels; and a heartfelt “thank you” to you, the readers.
The 2020 Democrats Want to
Redefine Citizenship
Sometimes
our political debates are furious and deeply divided because of demagogues,
clickbait media, and hype. But sometimes our political debates are furious
because they reflect a conflict of fundamentally opposed worldviews, where no
compromise is feasible.
Many of
the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates want to fundamentally redefine who
is American — that is, if you show up from another country and want to be here,
you ought to enjoy the full rights of citizenship and all of the benefits
provided to American citizens.
Bernie Sanders put it clearly:
“We’re going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free and open
that to the undocumented.” In other words, if are a citizen of another country
and you want a free college education, all you have to do is show up in the
United States and get accepted at any one of the 1,626 public colleges in the
United States.
Needless
to say, if enacted, this would bring a flood of people from all around the
world, eager to enjoy the benefits of a college degree, paid for by the U.S.
taxpayer. (In case you’re wondering, there are a handful of other countries in
Europe that offer very low or nominal tuition rates to American students, but
at most of those schools, competition for the limited slots is high.)
It is not
only Sanders. Beto O’Rourke says that the United States should contemplate eliminating the
citizenship exam because it is a structural barrier to
immigrants. Indeed, it is meant to be a structural barrier to
those who lack English proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing, and
civics knowledge. There was once a broad consensus that English proficiency and
civics knowledge were required to be a good American citizen. The 2020
Democrats no longer believe this to be true.
Ten
candidates, including Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Bernie
Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren believe that crossing the border or entering the
country without permission should no longer be a crime. On May 7, 2018, the
Department of Justice announced they would prosecute all adult aliens
apprehended crossing the border illegally, with no exception for asylum seekers
or those with minor children. (If that policy was repealed, border
crossers would still go through a civil legal process that could lead to their
deportation.)
Booker,
Steve Bullock, Bill de Blasio, Kirsten Gillibrand, Marianne Williamson, and
Andrew Yang believe the federal government should NOT require the use of
E-Verify to check the legal status of all hires by private
employers. Another nine candidates said they only support that idea as part of
a “compromise” on immigration reform.
Sanders
contends that adding the question “Are you a U.S. citizen?” to the 2020 census
would constitute “absolutely bigoted language.” Amy Klobuchar contends that if
the question is included, she would, as president, require a “recount” and
O’Rourke threatens that if it is included, he will re-do the entire census a
second time without the question. Even John Hickenlooper, allegedly one of the
centrists in the swarm of candidates, contends that asking the question on the
census for is “ corrupt and illegal.”
We all
have our notions of what constitutes an injustice. To many Democrats, the
longstanding practice of enforcement of immigration law — policies in place throughout
the Obama administration — is an inherent injustice. In their
minds, being an American citizen is simply a matter of wanting to be here.
No doubt,
Trump’s history with women is sordid and scandalous and full of crass, crude,
and objectifying behavior. On the other hand, we just went through a Supreme
Court nomination fight that illustrated the limited options for a man who is
accused of sexual assault with no evidence. We also know how conditional the
“believe all women” rallying cry is.
In
Carroll’s account, sometime in “the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996”
she ran into Trump in the early evening at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury
department store based on Fifth Avenue in Midtown Manhattan in New York City.
After some small talk, she agreed to try on lingerie in front of Trump for fun.
She said there were no other customers or sales attendants in the Bergdorf
Goodman lingerie department, and no other potential witnesses. She writes that
she has checked and that the department store did not keep security tapes from
that time. She describes herself as laughing through much of the experience. “I
don’t remember if any person or attendant is now in the lingerie department. I
don’t remember if I run for the elevator or if I take the slow ride down on the
escalator. As soon as I land on the main floor, I run through the store and out
the door — I don’t recall which door — and find myself outside on Fifth
Avenue.” Carroll says did not report it to the police but told it to two
friends. The two friends, contacted by New York magazine and not identified,
confirmed Carroll described an experience like this.
Carroll
is not seeking a police investigation or criminal charges. She insists this is
not just a ploy to sell books; if it were, the book would be all about the
president instead of the variety of creeps she’s encountered in her life. She
appears to believe that the country should know about her experience and act
accordingly.
“You don’t feel like a victim?” Cooper asked.
“I was not thrown on the ground and
ravished which the word rape carries so many sexual connotations. This was not
sexual. It hurt. It just — it just — you know,” Carroll responded.
“But I think most people think of
rape as — it is a violent assault. It is not — ,” Cooper began.
“I think most people think of rape as
being sexy,” Carroll said.
“Let’s take a short break,” Cooper
said.
“Think of the fantasies,” Carroll
interjected.
“We will take a quick break if you
can stick around. We’ll talk more on the other side,” Cooper continued.
“You’re fascinating to talk to,”
Carroll said.
Do most people think of rape as
being sexy?
In her account,
Carroll wrote, “the struggle might simply have read as ‘sexy.’”
The Big Thriller Roundup
Last week
on vacation, I finished Mark Greaney’s Agent in Place, the
2018 addition to his wildly popular series about Court Gentry, the CIA-trained
“Gray Man” who can blend in just about anywhere and who has the skills and
instincts to survive just about any situation. I had heard good things about
the Gray Man Series, but until recently I was a bit wary: the strong, silent,
brooding loner assassin protagonist can be a little tough to warm up to and
enjoy. But what Agent in Place does particularly well —
besides terrific research about the horrific situation in Syria as its civil
war winds down, the Syrian exile community in France, and the glamorous halls
of the high life in Paris – is set up a situation where the hero goes against
his better judgment and agrees to pursue a mission that is one step short of
suicidal. Greaney puts Gentry into a circumstance where any rational person
would say, “Nope, sorry, I can’t help you, I’d like to, but doing this will
almost certainly get me killed.” It’s the most desperate situation imaginable,
the risks are just a Dagwood sandwich of various dangers and menaces and
precarious gambles, his few allies are unreliable, and it requires sneaking
into probably the single most dangerous location on earth. But the life of an
innocent child hangs in the balance . . . and Gentry would have to look
at himself in the mirror if he choose to not try to save the child.
Back in May, I
reviewed Matthew Betley’sOverwatch,
which established his recovering-alcoholic Marine officer Logan West and an
ever-changing realm of national-security threats that he and his
out-of-retirement comrades must chase. That’s the first in his series; the
fourth book in the series, Rules of War, hits
stores and ships in mid-July. With a ripped-from-the headlines relevancy,
much of Rules of War is set in a
rapidly-deteriorating Venezuela. Betley told me, “I wanted to set it in a
crumbling third-world country, and there’s no better example of that today than
Venezuela.” Last week on Dana Perino’s program on Fox
News, he talked a bit about the book, and a class action lawsuit
against the Department of Veterans Affairs and his recent experiences with the
VA, attempting to get coverage for lung problems stemming from the burn pits in
Iraq.
Also last
week, I finished John A. Daly’s Blood Trade. Set
shortly after 9/11, Sean Coleman is another protagonist who’s overcoming his
battles with the bottle, looking for a second chance and redemption for past
mistakes. Blood Trade has a lot of atmosphere, high in the
Colorado mountains, with a mood of foreboding hanging over much of the action.
(Those who know my favorite television series will
know I’m inclined to like stories of rural small towns with secrets behind
every door.) Daly takes what looks like a mundane missing-persons stories and
gradually reveals a chillingly plausible plot with, a deeply relatable motive
for the story’s villains, and a vivid illustration of just how far some people
will go to safe a life. This book is accurately titled. Daly’s next is Safeguard, coming in
October, featuring Coleman guarding a defunct nuclear silo . . . and apparently
attracting the attention of a local cult.
Then
there’s arguably the most anticipated thriller of the summer, Brad Thor’s Backlash featuring
Scot Harvath, who’s ended up working for the U.S. Secret Service, Navy SEALs,
and as a CIA contractor over the course of 18 novels. As mentioned yesterday,
not only does it live up to the hype, it’s really striking for how different a
story this is from the previous books in this series. The last few Harvath
novels have featured him and usually a small team investigating or uncovering
some sinister plot by jihadists, or China, or the Russians. Backlash blows
up that familiar rhythm and is reminiscent of that Liam Nesson movie The Grey,
and the classic The Fugitive, and some of Jack London’s classic
survival-in-the-most-hostile-wilds stories. Almost the entire story takes place
in a remote corner of the world that I suspect has never been featured in a
thriller before, and the story focuses as much on Harvath’s challenge to
survive psychologically intact as physically. Thor is to be saluted for willing
to experiment and move away from familiar territory, both literally and
figuratively.
And these
are just the thriller novels I’ve gotten my hands on recently. Daniel Silva’s The New Girl comes
out July 16, with Israeli spymaster Gabriel Allon crossing paths with a
ruthless Saudi prince who is likely to be compared to the real-life Mohammed
bin Salman.
ADDENDA: You guys really are the best
readers in the world. Yesterday I mentioned that reviews on Amazon help a book
find an audience, and this morning I find 27 reviews on the page,
each one kind and offering some sort of insightful observation. Thank you,
thank you, thank you. Someone said to me recently that I shouldn’t have said
the book isn’t that political, because it covers some big topics adjacent to
our modern politics — “questions of heroism, of identity, and of faith” as one
reviewer put it, and “the fragile line between chaos and sanity in a society”
as another described it. This is what happens when you start the creation of
your villains with, “what frightens me?”
Migrants from Central America cross the Rio
Bravo river to enter illegally into the United States at El Paso, Texas, June
11, 2019.(Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters)This is a similar border crisis
to the one Obama faced in his second term, with similar challenges.
News flash: There’s a crisis at the
border.
This was discovered again over the past few days when
immigration attorneys talked to reporters about appalling conditions at a
Border Patrol facility detaining migrant minors in Clint, Texas.
According to the lawyers, many of the kids had to sleep on the
concrete floor, failed to get proper adult supervision, and didn’t routinely
take showers or brush their teeth. The details were hard to read.
Assuming the account was accurate, one wonders how we could
treat anyone this way, let alone children? But a lawyer who talked to the New Yorker mentioned a telling fact: The
facility previously had a capacity of 104 and had never held children before.
Yet it held roughly 350 children, apparently accommodated by placement of a new
warehouse at the site.
All this is consistent with vast numbers of migrants, many of
them families and children, flooding the border and overtaxing facilities never
meant for these kinds of numbers or this demographic of migrant.
Indeed, the immigration lawyer mentioned to the New Yorker that the personnel at the
Border Patrol facility were constantly receiving children and constantly
transferring them over to a Health and Human Services site, and stipulated that
the guards believed the children don’t belong there and should go someplace
more appropriate. (Under the glare of publicity, they did.)
The broader problem is that HHS, which is supposed to get
custody of migrant children from Border Patrol in short order, is itself overburdened
and backed up.
Since it’s 2019, what should be properly attributed to dire
circumstances and limited capacity is instead taken as evidence of President
Donald Trump’s malice.
If what’s happening at the border is a product of Trump policy,
it would have to involve an intricate and well-executed plan. The White House
would have to convince the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security,
Kevin McAleenan — who served as deputy commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection under President Barack Obama — to send word down through the
bureaucracy to treat children as callously as possible and not to leak word of
this explosive guidance.
In the real world, a migrant influx will test even an
administration more favorably inclined toward immigration. The reason that the
Left can’t keep their viral images straight — often misattributing to Trump
photos of kids in steel-cage holding pens during the Obama years — is that this
is a similar crisis to the one Obama faced in his second term, with similar challenges.
A viral video of a Justice Department lawyer arguing before a
panel of judges last week that kids don’t need toothbrushes and soap to meet
the standard for “safe and sanitary” detention under the so-called Flores
settlement has caused outrage. But few have stopped to note that the underlying
case had to do with a district court finding that the Obama administration in
2015 was in material breach of the Flores standard (or that the DOJ lawyer was
offering a technical legal argument — not a defense of mistreating kids).
All that said, once these migrants are under our care, it is our
responsibility to make sure they are treated as humanely as possible. The
border needs more resources. The Trump administration has been asking Congress
to pass a funding package, and it should do so forthwith. To address the root
cause of the crisis, it should also change the bizarre asylum rules that have
forced us to release family units from Central America into the country,
creating an incentive for more to come.
As long as that’s the case, we aren’t going to be able to
control the border or process people coming across it in an orderly fashion.
What we’re seeing is what a border crisis looks like. If we don’t like it — and
we shouldn’t — it’s time for Congress to act to begin to bring it to an end.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection border-patrol agent talks
to people on the Mexican side of the border wall in San Diego, Calif., November
28, 2018. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
If you have a swimming
pool, you can be held liable if a trespassing child falls in and drowns unless
you’ve taken reasonable steps to keep children from getting to the pool, like a
fence. An unfenced pool (or trampoline or a discarded refrigerator that locks
from the outside, among other potentially dangerous things) is thus called an “attractive nuisance.”
The loopholes in our
asylum laws make our nation’s borders an attractive nuisance, as well. Of
course, no matter what we do, there will always be people who will try to
illegally infiltrate our borders, and it’s inevitable that some of them will
die in the process — whether by drowning, exposure, dehydration, or other
causes. But when we fail to take the most elementary steps to dissuade people
from trying to sneak in — heck, when we reward people
for sneaking in with kids in tow and making bogus asylum claims — we share the
responsibility for those deaths.
The heart-wrenching
photograph of a Salvadoran father and daughter who were found drowned Monday on
the banks of the Rio Grande forces us to face this issue. Julian Castro was
right when he said at last night’s Democratic debate, “watching
that image of Oscar and his daughter, Valeria, is heartbreaking. It should also
piss us all off.”
But once pissed off, how
to respond? How do we make our border not be an attractive nuisance?
Castro’s answer — and the
approach of virtually all Democratic candidates and elected officials — is open
borders. And I no longer mean that Democrats are, in effect, calling for open borders. At last night’s
debate there was no longer any pretense. Castro took the lead, followed by the
rest, in calling for repeal of the criminal law against border infiltration,
ending the practice of making asylum claimants take a number at ports of entry
and wait their turn, the complete abolition of immigrant detention, and amnesty
for every foreigner who manages to get past the border so long as they don’t
commit a “serious” crime (whatever that means today). Though
she wasn’t on the stage Wednesday, the party’s leader, House speaker Nancy
Pelosi, made clear that she’s on board, asking at an event Monday “What’s the point?” of enforcing
immigration laws inside the United States. What all this represents is the
abolition of immigration limits.
This would certainly end
the attractive-nuisance problem. It would also lead to a rush for the border
that would make the 2015 border crisis in Europe (sparked by the photo of
another drowned child) pale by comparison. Gallup reported
earlier this year that 42 million people in Latin America want to move
here, and the share that would actually follow through would be a lot higher
than now if we were to formally convert the Border Patrol into a welcome wagon,
as the Democrats propose. And that’s not counting the Africans, Middle Easterners, and other “extra-continental” migrants
we’re seeing.
The other approach to
ending the attractive-nuisance problem is to fence off the swimming pool, as it
were. In some places that might actually mean a literal fence, but that won’t
address the reasons for the current surge. At the very least, that would
require plugging the three most serious legal loopholes incentivizing
people to cross the border. It also would entail actually deporting people who’ve exhausted their
due process, been turned down for asylum, and received a deportation order from
a judge; until people in Central America see their fellows glumly stepping off
the plane, their asylum ploys having failed, they’ll rightly figure the trip is
worth it. More broadly, mandating the use of E-Verify, at least for new hires,
is imperative, to “fence off” the labor market.
There are two ways the United
States can limit its responsibility for deaths on the border: Unlimited
immigration, or limits that are actually enforced. The Democrats have
made their choice. They should be made to answer for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment