Tuesday, January 15, 2019

7 out of 10 AUSTRALIANS WANT IMMIGRATION TO END..... They've seen what happened to America under Mexican occupation

Survey: Seven in 10 Australians Want Immigration to End

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA - MAY 15: Large crowds line the Sydney Opera House forecourt for the arrival of teen sailor Jessica Watson following her world record attempt to become the youngest person to sail solo, non-stop and unassisted around the world, in Sydney Harbour on May 15, 2010 in Sydney, Australia. …
Lisa Maree Williams/Getty

Soaring house prices and crowded cities have combined to convince a clear majority of Australians that the country’s immigration push must end.

Just 30.4 per cent of Australians now believe the country needs more people, according to a poll conducted by the Australian National University (ANU).
This was compared to 69.6 per cent who felt Australia did not need more people, a dramatic increase since a similar poll was done in 2010.
The collapse in support was most prominent among males with just 32.8 percent supporting a bigger Australia compared to 53.4 percent in the 2010 poll.
Most Australians support the notion of cultural diversity but did not want population growth to come at the expense of the quality of life of the majority, according to the survey.
The results confirm previous calls by local politicians for the country’s conservative coalition government to end mass migration:
Lead researcher Nicholas Biddle said that crowded cities and the high cost of housing were the most common reasons given for not increasing Australia’s population.
“Nearly nine out of 10 people nominated the cost of housing being too high as a reason for not increasing Australia’s population, while 84 per cent of people said that cities are too crowded and there is too much traffic,” he said in a media statement.
 “The policy and social context will always influence Australians’ views on population growth. Most people are now supportive of cultural diversity as a by-product of population growth.”
“On the other hand, geopolitics, defence and population pressures overseas are less likely to factor into someone’s decision than they might have in the past.”
Australia’s population growth is the largest it has experienced since colonisation.
In 1981 the Australian population was around 14.9 million people. By June 2018 it had reached 25.0 million, with the last five million of that growth occurring since December 2004.
Last year, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he intended to cut Australia’s permanent migration intake by about 30,000 people, citing public concern about congested cities.
“They are saying: enough, enough, enough,” Mr Morrison told the 2018 Bradfield Oration in November.

“In 2018, a volunteer for the Beto campaign urged followers to transport undocumented aliens (ILLEGALS) to the polls.”
“Many liberals believe that anyone in the United States – citizen or non-citizen – should be able to vote.  If they want to make that argument and change the law to make it happen, they are more than welcome to try.  Of course, if they run on that issue, they will get slaughtered at the polls.  So instead of going to the American people and working to change the law, they try an underhanded dirty trick to achieve the same goal.” APOLO VILLALOBOS

LA RAZA SUPREMACIST BETO O’ROURKE… openly endorsed by Mexico!
O’Rourke tweeted his support for hundreds of undocumented people into American communities.
“Many thanks to volunteers & donors who ensure that we take care of families being released by ICE in El Paso. 200 to be released today. Over 500 tomorrow.” BETO O’ROURKE
 We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the reconquest of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico.

LLOYD MARCUS - WHY ARE LEFTIST THRILLED BY ABORTION..... But then pay millions of Mexicans to breed anchor babies for welfare???

Why are leftists thrilled by abortion?

On January 7, Hillary Clinton and New York's Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced their satanic bill to allow abortions through all nine months up to birth.  The intensely jubilant faces of these two Democrats while launching their baby-killing campaign was bone-chillingly evil.  Clinton and Cuomo held their joined hands high in the air like an enthusiastic victorious battle-cry as they grinned ear to ear.  Why were they so happy?  Why are these leftist politicians barely able to contain their excitement over the thought of killing more babies? 
During her presidential campaign, Hillary vowed to protect animals from cruelty and abuse.  And yet, Hillary is elated over her bill to allow abortion doctors to deliver a nine-month-old baby except for the head, then shove scissors into his brain to kill him.  This barbaric, shameful, and evil procedure is called partial-birth abortion
In 2011, Hillary cosponsored the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act to end the slaughter of horses for their meat.  Meanwhile, Hillary passionately defends Planned Parenthood, which kills babies for their meat, selling dead baby body parts – intact heads sell for premium prices.  Planned Parenthood has made over $100 million selling aborted baby parts
Abortion zealots fear that a conservative majority on the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, the unconstitutional ruling that made abortion legal.  Here's how abortion activist Sarah Silverman expressed the urgency of keeping Judge Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court: "This is a position for life, y'all."  In her sad, perverted thinking, Silverman infers that women will die if they cannot for whatever reason kill the horrible thing growing inside them even on the birth date. 
Eighty-five-year-old pro-abortion Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health is failing.  If she dies or retires, leftists fear that Trump's replacement will be a conservative.  Panicked female abortion zealots are offering their body parts to keep Ginsburg alive.  Abortion zealot Alyssa Milano offered her ribs, kidneys, and a lung to Justice Ginsburg.  Notice the intense passion to do whatever necessary to freely kill babies in the womb.
"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you..." (Jeremiah 1:5)
Alyssa Milano through the Fuzzy Pet Foundation compassionately rescued a dog in South Korea being raised for slaughter.  It appears that Milano has zero compassion for innocent babies.  She is insanely committed to murdering them before birth.  Also, Milano has not complained about Planned Parenthood profiting from the sales of slaughtered baby body parts.
In 2018, abortion was the number-one cause of death worldwide; over 41 million children were killed before birth.  Again I ask, why is this horrifying stat cause for leftists to celebrate?
In a landslide, Irish voters repealed their anti-abortion laws.  Many observers were uncomfortable with the eerie jubilation of thousands of women in the streets hugging while crying tears of sheer joy
Co-director of the abortion campaign Orla O'Connor said, "This is a monumental day for women in Ireland.  This is about women taking their rightful place in Irish society, finally."
Another Irish woman thrilled about killing babies said, "It's such a great victory for women, for men, for our future generation.  It's just – I'm so emotional."
"And God blessed them.  And God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." (Genesis 1:28)
Despite God's command to "be fruitful and multiply," many youths vow not to have children because leftists have convinced them that childbirth is extremely destructive to the environment.  Leftists foolishly believe they are smarter than God.
Unquestionably, abortion is the holy sacrament of the demonic religion of liberalism.  Shockingly, over 20 religious leaders gathered to bless the opening of a new Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Washington, D.C.  President and CEO Dr. Laura Meyers said, "In almost every message to our staff, I talk about our doing sacred work."  What is wrong with these people?  How can they claim moral and spiritual high ground killing babies and selling their body parts?
Insanely, a majority of the religious leaders who blessed the new dead baby chop shop are black.  A disproportionately high number of aborted babies are blacks.  Right-thinking black ministers have been sounding the alarm for years how blacks are aborting themselves to extinction
Leftists are in constant rebellion against God's natural order.  Leftist women act as if pregnancy were God's cursed disease, as devastating as cancer, and abortion is the life-saving cure.
Abortion zealots do not view abortion as a necessary evil.  They are actually thrilled when a mother murders her baby.  There is something strange and disturbingly evil about leftists having all the sympathy in the world for animals and not an ounce of sympathy (even disdain) for innocent unborn babies.
Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American


While a physical border barrier is important, it is even more important to eliminate the incentives to draw illegal aliens even to try to cross the border.  Democrats will have a harder time explaining why we shouldn't increase taxes on corporations that hire illegal aliens than why a border barrier is "immoral."
While waiting out the Democrats over the partial government shutdown, President Trump could deliver a digital wall to stem illegal immigration by using a tool already at his disposal: the U.S. Tax Code.
Trump could simply direct the IRS to favor American businesses that hire persons legally permitted to work in the U.S.  This policy – call it "affirmative wage deduction" (AWD) – would cause an instant exodus of illegal aliens, potentially recoup billions of dollars in federal tax subsidies, and turn off the employment magnet that now draws thousands of aliens to breach our borders.
To do this, Trump should direct the Internal Revenue Service to redefine the terms "eligible wage and vendor deductions" under the tax code to require verification through an existing online database called the E-Verify System, compiled and operated by the Social Security Administration. 
E-Verify contains each enrollee's birth date, place of birth, address, and Social Security number, along with other personal data. 
Under the new definition, any employer who wishes to reduce its taxable income by deducting payments to employees or independent contractors would use E-Verify to determine if those payees are "confirmed" or "tentatively non-confirmed" as legally able to work in the U.S. 
If the worker is confirmed, then E-Verify could send an authentication code to the employer and to the IRS.  When the IRS receives this code, it will get the green light to allow the deduction claimed by employers.  If the IRS does not receive this code, it will automatically erect a virtual "wall" to detect non-confirmed labor expenses claimed in the employers' tax returns. 
The result: Legal workers are let in, and illegal workers are kept out of the tax equation, with the employer feeling the difference in its pocketbook.  The use of cheap and illegal labor to deprive Americans of entry-level jobs will no longer be unfairly rewarding those employers who are the financial beneficiaries of illegal immigration.  Best of luck to the Chamber of Commerce Republicans and the open borders Democrats to explain why this would be a bad idea.
Implementing the AWD program would require an adjustment period, where legal workers who don't have their paperwork in order with the E-Verify system could rectify any problems before the tax-deductibility of their wages or independent contractor payments is blocked.  AWD would require millions of legal American workers to log onto the E-Verify system to ensure that their pay will reduce their employers' taxable income, and no doubt, there will be some horror stories similar to the Obamacare rollout as the E-Verify system is stressed by the initial volume.  However, the long-term benefits make this a worthwhile endeavor.
AWD is not a panacea.  It doesn't prohibit companies from hiring illegal workers, and many may still find it cost-effective to do so.  As proposed here, this system would not be used as a "permission to work program" or a law enforcement tool by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.  It would not affect the gardeners, babysitters, and handymen who are paid cash with after-tax earnings by homeowners, who cannot claim these expenditures as business expenses.
The strategy's effectiveness relies on the profit motive of employers to voluntarily enforce federal immigration laws.  This is much less expensive than relying on ICE agents to round up illegals within our borders.
However, AWD is a compelling tax incentive program for businesses that follow the immigration laws and eliminates the competitive advantage enjoyed by employers who flout these laws.  At a combined federal and state marginal tax rate of over 50 percent in California, for example, any business-owner would earn greater profits hiring a legal worker at $19 an hour than hiring an illegal worker for $10 an hour.
Why should wages paid to persons who illegally entered or overstayed their visa be allowable deductions any more than parking tickets, currently disallowable deductions according to IRS rules?


Within months of adopting this change, millions of illegal ALIENS employed in the hospitality, meatpacking, agriculture, construction, and garment industries would be replaced by citizens without college degrees – the same voters who made up the core of President Trump's voting base.
By the use of the Social Security database, almost all working Americans would participate in AWD, with no subgroups unfairly targeted.  Most important for taxpayers and unemployed workers, this digital wall could be built more quickly, at a fraction of the cost of the physical barrier at the border.  The Open Borders Democrats won't be able to hurl the "racism" or "wasteful spending" epithets at AWD.
By utilizing an executive order to implement AWD, the president could demonstrate that he will utilize whatever authority is at his disposal to address the problem of illegal immigration, with or without Congress's cooperation, or the need for declaring a state of emergency.

Can a Wall Pay for Itself?: An Update
A wall would have to prevent just 3 to 4 percent of illegal crossers

Washington, D.C. (January 8, 2018) – Ahead of President Trump's speech tonight, where he is expected to call for funding for border security, new analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies finds that a border wall would fund itself. This updated analysis indicates that to pay for the president's $5 billion wall request, a wall would have to prevent about 60,000 crossings — or 3 to 4 percent of expected illegal crossers in the next decade.

Steve Camarota, the Director of Research at the Center and the author of the analysis, said, "While it is true that more illegal immigrants come through overstayed visas than through our southern border, the reality is that even if a border wall reduced just a tiny fraction of illegal crossings, it would pay for itself. Like any investment, the wall’s costs must be measured against its returns. 
A border wall in areas where it is needed, combined with broadly popular enforcement measures such as E-Verify and the closing of asylum loopholes, would effectively curb illegal immigration and secure America’s porous borders.”

View the full analysis: https://www.cis.org/Camarota/Can-Wall-Pay-Itself-Update

  • In a prior analysis we took the likely education level of illegal border-crossers and applied fiscal estimates developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) for immigrants by education level — excluding their children. These estimates indicated an average lifetime net fiscal cost of $74,722 per illegal crosser — $82,191 in 2018 dollars.
  • Analysis by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) indicates that there are 1.95 to 2.28 apprehensions for every successful illegal crossing. This translates to about 170,000 to 200,000 successful illegal crossings in 2018, or 1.7 million to two million over the next 10 years, assuming this level continues.
  • The House passed a funding bill before Christmas with $5 billion for the wall, which means the wall would have to stop or deter 3 to 4 percent (60,000) of the future illegal crossers over the next decade to pay for itself.
  • If we make conservative alternative assumptions that illegal crossers cost half what we estimate, and we further assume the future flows will be only half the 2018 level, then the wall would have to stop or deter 12 to 14 percent of expected illegal border-crossers in the next decade.

Important Caveats
  • A large share of the net fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is at the state and local level, not the federal level. The costs of building the wall will be borne by the federal government.
  • These cost estimates, based on the NAS research, only include original illegal immigrants, not their children and grandchildren. In our prior analysis, we found that if the cost of descendants is included, then the net fiscal drain raises to $94,391 — $103,826 in 2018 dollars.
  • To create its long-term fiscal estimates for immigrants by education level, the NAS uses the concept of "net present value" (NPV). This concept, which is common in economics, has the effect of reducing the size of the net fiscal drain that less-educated immigrants, which describes most illegal immigrants, will create in the future. The NAS does this because costs or benefits years from now are valued less in economics relative to more immediate costs. If the actual net lifetime fiscal cost of illegal border-crossers were used it would likely roughly double the lifetime fiscal drain illegal crossers create. (We have a longer discussion of this issue in our original report. See the section "Do Net Present Values Make Sense?" The bottom line is that NPVs do make sense when thinking about the costs of a wall because the cost of a wall is immediate and with NPV the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants is also measured in current dollars.)



According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s 2017 report, illegal immigrants, and their children, cost American taxpayers a net $116 billion annually -- roughly $7,000 per alien annually. While high, this number is not an outlier: a recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that low-skilled immigrants (including those here illegally) cost Americans trillions over the course of their lifetimes, and a study from the National Economics Editorial found that illegal immigration costs America over $140 billion annually. As it stands, illegal immigrants are a massive burden on American taxpayers.


E-VERIFY – Why both parties hate the word!


Putting employers of illegals in prison would end the foreign invasion today!



Electronic Barriers

While the nation squabbles over a border wall, technology could help cut off the supply of jobs to illegal immigrants.
December 13, 2018
Politics and law
Economy, finance, and budgets
Donald Trump was elected president because a large segment of the American public was fed up with the government’s failure to stop mass illegal immigration. Trump’s campaign promise to build a wall between Mexico and the U.S. drew an ecstatic response from his supporters, long scorned for their belief that the decision regarding who enters the country belongs to Americans, not to foreign nationals living outside the country. But the wall has not been built, and the fight over its funding has sucked political capital from the pursuit of other, and arguably better, means to deter illegal immigrants.
The most important of those measures is to prevent unauthorized aliens from getting work, since the jobs magnet is the primary lure for illegal immigration. Commentators and analysts across the political spectrum have acknowledged that preventing illegal employment is key to deterring illegal immigration. The New York Times editorialized in 1982 that “there can be no effective enforcement of the borders” without mandatory verification of a worker’s papers. A technology has existed for decades to do just that. E-Verify, run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, allows employers to check—instantaneously and for free—whether the work documents presented by a potential employee correspond to an existing Social Security number or whether they are forged. Universal implementation of E-Verify has been blocked, however, by employers who prefer to hire illegal aliens over American workers.
Trump invoked E-Verify during the 2016 campaign but has since stopped publicly promoting it. Yet E-Verify is more popular with the public than the wall; at least two-thirds of poll respondents support mandatory verification of a worker’s lawful status. States that require it (Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah) have changed worker behavior. Illegal aliens dropped off the payrolls in Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, prompting employers to hire legal workers, according to a 2013 study conducted by Bloomberg Government. A 2017 study by Carnegie Mellon University found that Arizona’s E-Verify law induced return migration from Arizona to Mexico and decreased illegal immigration into Arizona from Mexico. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that the population of less educated young Mexican and Central American immigrants dropped in states with mandatory E-Verify, in part because they moved to states without the mandate and in part because they returned to their home countries. Wages for low-skilled American and legal-immigrant workers in mandatory E-Verify states rose between 7 percent and 9 percent, while wages for illegal Mexican males dropped nearly 8 percent.
Yet enforcement is spotty. Only 2 percent of businesses in South Carolina were audited in 2017, and 17 percent of that sample were found not to be using the system. None of the scofflaws, however, were fined. The Cato Institute has alleged that only 59 percent of Arizona employers checked a worker’s documents against federal databases in 2017. For E-Verify to work to its fullest potential, it must be made universal and enforced, so that employers who use it are not put at a competitive disadvantage against employers who continue to use cheap (if often more reliable) illegal labor. The House Judiciary Committee has thrice passed a bill to mandate universal E-Verify. The most recent iteration, the Legal Workforce Act, sponsored by Lamar Smith and Ken Calvert and promoted by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, phases in the employer mandate gradually, starting with the largest businesses first. It gives agricultural companies 30 months to comply. Employers who use E-Verify in good faith cannot be penalized, even if they receive an incorrect eligibility verification. Though the Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the Smith-Calvert bill, the law has stalled, largely because of opposition from western agricultural interests.
E-Verify is not foolproof. It only catches phony work papers that are created out of whole cloth. If an illegal alien has acquired a valid but stolen identity, including Social Security number and driver’s license, he will pass the eligibility check. One study of employment data from 2008 found that half of all illegal workers who submitted papers for E-Verify were incorrectly found to be authorized for work. The reason for that false negative was the submission of stolen identities. Those false negatives represented 3 percent of all E-Verify submissions. Recent reports that Trump employed illegal aliens at a golf club skirted over the fact that the workers presented stolen documents to get their jobs. Nevertheless, while some illegal workers get through the system, many others are deterred from seeking a job.
E-Verify can be tightened up. The Citizenship and Immigration Service has developed a photo tool that compares the worker presenting work documents with the original photos in driver’s licenses, passports, and permanent resident cards. At present, the Social Security Administration does not inform victims of identity theft that their papers have been compromised; the Legal Workforce Act would require the SSA to notify a Social Security holder if his number has been used on numerous, mutually conflicting, jobs, and it allows workers to lock in their Social Security number so that it can’t be used by anyone else. With such changes, E-Verify’s false positive rate could be considerably lowered.
Congressman Lamar Smith has estimated that illegal labor lowers Americans’ wages by $100 billion a year. That $100 billion may be good news for business owners and some consumers, but it hits low-skilled American workers hard. The cost in working-class stability adds to the existing burdens placed on local school systems, hospitals, and criminal-justice agencies from a large influx of low-social-capital, low-skilled illegal migrants. The recent sight of Central American migrants storming the fence between Mexico and California is a reminder that a more extensive and better-policed wall is still needed. The asylum process must also be tightened up; asylum seekers should remain in Mexico while their cases are assessed for credibility. Birthright citizenship should end, and the law against immigrant welfare use must be enforced. But over the long run, preventing illegal aliens from taking jobs from Americans and lawful immigrants will be the best means of restoring control of U.S. borders and sovereignty.
If Trump wants to demolish the Democrats’ playbook, he should offer to switch federal funding in this round of budget talks from the wall to E-Verify. Doing so would force Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to go on record opposing a legal workforce.

Worksite Arrests Up 640 Percent as ICE Cracks Down on Employers of Illegal Immigrants

December 14, 2018 Updated: December 16, 2018
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has ramped up investigations of employers who used illegal immigrant workers in the fiscal year 2018, which ended in September.
ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) department arrested more than 2,300 people in 2018 related to worksite enforcement, including almost 800 criminal arrests of employers and more than 1,500 administrative arrests of unauthorized workers. That represents an increase in worksite-related arrests of about 640 percent, compared to the slightly more than 300 made the year before.
HSI opened more than 6,800 worksite investigations in fiscal 2018—about four times more than the year before.
“Reducing illegal employment helps build another layer of border security, and reduces the continuum of crime that illegal labor facilitates, from the human smuggling networks that facilitate illegal border crossings to the associated collateral crimes, like identity theft, document and benefit fraud, and worker exploitation,” HSI Executive Associate Director Derek Benner said in a Dec. 11 release.
The boosted enforcement didn’t translate into more indictments and convictions, “but those numbers are also expected to rise due to many ongoing investigations, which can take months to years to fully develop,” the release stated. The 72 indictments and 49 convictions in 2018 were little changed from the 71 indictments and 55 convictions the year before.
The authorities imposed far less in fines—some $10 million in 2018, compared to nearly $98 million in 2017. That comparison, however, is misleading because the bulk of the 2017 sum came from Asplundh Tree Experts, which paid the government $95 million after a six-year HSI investigation found that the company had knowingly hired and re-hired illegal aliens.

Major Cases

In April, HSI raided a slaughterhouse in Bean Station, Tennessee, and arrested 104 illegal immigrants. In September, the owner of the company pleaded guilty to federal charges of tax fraud, wire fraud, and employing illegal aliens. He has agreed to pay $1.4 million in restitution, but could face additional prison time and fines when he is sentenced early next year.
In August, HSI busted a trailer manufacturer in Sumner, Texas, and arrested 160 people on immigration violations, “many who were using stolen identities of U.S. citizens,” the release stated.
Also in August, HSI arrested 17 people connected to an alleged criminal conspiracy to exploit illegal immigrant workers for profit, fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.
“Employers who use an illegal workforce as part of their business model put businesses that do follow the law at a competitive disadvantage,” said Benner.
“HSI is committed to upholding the laws that govern worksite enforcement. These laws help protect jobs for U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully employed, reduce the incentive of illegal migration, eliminate unfair competitive advantages for companies that hire an illegal workforce, and ultimately help strengthen public safety and national security.”
Employers are required to verify the identity and work eligibility of all their hires, and to document that information on the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I-9 form), based on the Immigration Reform and Control Act signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.
The brunt of HSI worksite enforcement stems from I-9 audits, where the authorities send a notice of inspection to employers, who then have three days to produce the relevant employment eligibility verification forms. ICE then conducts a compliance inspection, which can lead to civil fines and criminal prosecution for employers who break the law. Employees who are found to be in the country illegally are then arrested for deportation.
President Donald Trump has made fighting illegal immigration a priority, focusing on securing the southern border, busting transnational gangs such as MS-13, deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes, and also cracking down on those who employ illegal immigrants.
Trump already convinced Congress to allocate some $1.6 billion for border fencing in fiscal years 2017 and 2018. For 2019, the president wants at least $5 billion more to deliver on his campaign promise of building a border wall. He has repeatedly expressed a willingness to partially shut down the government if Congress doesn’t approve the funding.

 NumbersUSA’s Rosemary Jenks: E-Verify Ignored in DACA Negotiations 


Because ‘Members of Congress Know It Will Work’

File Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
by ROBERT KRAYCHIK23 Jan 2018395

Members of Congress broadly oppose a legislative nationwide E-Verify mandate for employers because “they know it will work,” said NumbersUSA’s Rosemary Jenks, explaining why E-Verify is not being pushed in congressional negotiations for an amnesty deal for recipients of the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Jenks further noted that both parties are beholden to special interests supportive of “mass migration.”

Jenks offered her analysis during a Monday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with Breitbart News’s Senior Editors-at-Large Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak.
Mansour asked Jenks why most Republicans were not supporting a legislative nationwide mandate for E-Verify use by employers. “Why do you think that this isn’t being pushed, then? It seems like a no-brainer. Why is this not being included in all the negotiations?” she said.
“I think [E-Verify] is not being pushed precisely because members of Congress know it will work,” said Jenks. “I think that is exactly the reason it’s not being pushed. Democrats, for sure, don’t want mandatory E-Verify because they know it will discourage illegal immigration, which will discourage the push for the next amnesty. And, let’s face it, the establishment Republicans don’t want it because they know it will be effective and eliminate their cheap labor pools.”
Special interests, including “big business,” “organized religion,” and “ethnic advocacy groups,” subvert popular American will via their funding and political agitation, said Jenks, adding, “It’s about the donors and about the Democrat Party wanting mass immigration. Those are the two factors that rule every immigration debate. It’s always the big business donors, organized religion, the ethnic advocacy groups. All of the money is behind mass immigration, and then, there’s the American people on the other side. That’s the problem we have had. That’s why we haven’t controlled immigration in the last five decades.”
Legislating a national mandate for E-Verify use by employers is more important than construction of a southern border wall, argued Jenks. “In our view, mandatory E-Verify is more important than a wall. So that is the one place where we’re hoping that we can move the administration to saying E-Verify is a must-have.”
Approximately half of “the illegal population” is composed of foreigners who lawfully entered the homeland and overstay their visas, said Jenks. An E-Verify mandate on employers, she added, would “mostly shut down” the lure of employment for illegal aliens.
E-Verify usage by employers would facilitate more effective enforcement of immigration law by allowing federal authorities to target businesses abstaining for its use, said Jenks. “They have a clearer target for enforcement measures.”
Jenks listed the following elements as “must-haves” for any legislative amnesty proposal: 1) limiting the amnesty to the DACA population; 2) ending chain migration; 3) ending the “Diversity Visa Program” lottery; 4) implementation of effective border security and interior enforcement measures; and 5) implementation of a national mandate for employer use of E-Verify.
Breitbart News Tonight airs Monday through Friday on SiriusXM’s Patriot channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific).