Many Democrats understand that the welfare checks for foreign children will encourage more illegal immigration, he said:
They know what’s going on. But they know that they can’t say what their true goal is, which is actual open borders with open, uncontrolled migration both ways. And this is a step toward getting rid of borders.
“It’s a globalist mindset and it welcomes anything that moves toward open borders,” he concluded.
Biden Funds Covert Parole Pipeline for Illegals to Reach U.S. Jobs, Housing
President Joe Biden’s border chief is using Mexico-based migrant advocacy groups to smuggle off-the-books economic migrants into Americans’ workplaces and housing.
Border chief Alejandro Mayorkas is allowing the progressive groups in Mexico to help job-seeking migrants file online legal requests for “immigration parole.” Many of the applications are quickly approved, so allowing the poor migrants to avoid the cartels’ border taxes, and to safely walk into the United States through the official “Ports of Entry.”
This process allows economic migrants to take U.S. jobs and housing needed by poor Americans — even though many millions of Americans are poor and have fallen out of the workforce.
The parole doorway was created by Congress to enable the legal entry of a small number of emergency cases, such as a foreign seaman suffering a heart attack. But the useful loophole has been hugely expanded by Mayorkas’ Department of Homeland Security into a “humanitarian parole” freeway into Americans’ workplaces.
Agency data suggests that up to 100,000 southern migrants have been quietly delivered into the United States by Mayorkas, a Cuba-born, pro-migration zealot.
The rising inflow is partly visible on a web page run by Mayorkas’ agency.
The page shows the dramatic rise in migrants registered at the official ports of entry by the Office of Field Operations agency. Many of these migrants appear to be part of the parole pipeline — and the monthly inflow grew fivefold from October 2021 to 26,405 in October 2022.
This increase is especially high in a few locations. In October 2021, for example, just 1,224 migrants crossed at Laredo. In October 2022, the Laredo inflow had increased tenfold to 13,986, according to DHS.
“It’s the ultimate silent way to accomplish his objectives … they’re not recorded as apprehensions,” said George Fishman, a former immigration law staffer in the House.
The stealthy route helps Biden, Mayorkas, and their anti-border allies in two ways, said Fishman, who now works with the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS):
The lower the apprehension numbers, the better publicity-wise. [Mayorkas] can claim ‘Look, I’m getting the border under control. apprehensions are falling!” But if the [official numbers show declines] it is because people don’t even need to try to enter illegally anymore when they’re just going to be paroled in [legally]. The second thing is that … [migrants] don’t have to commit a federal crime to cross.
The government’s parole pipeline was exposed by Todd Bensman at CIS. He told Breitbart News:
I was in Tijuana and was able to learn that the shelters I was visiting were feeding people into this [parole] system …. So I realized I was in a position to finally actually see this new way that they were letting people in that I’ve never been able to prove before.
So I just followed the shelter system [by asking] “Hey, where are they letting them in?”
“This is happening In Mexicali too,” they said.
When I got to Mexicali, I asked, “Where’s the shelter where they end up and then go across?” and they said, “Oh, it’s over there.” So I went over there and introduced myself and told them I’d like to do a story about it, would they mind and they said “No problem, come in”. It wasn’t any voodoo or magic. It was just a question of me asking to see it.
Bensman posted a video of migrants using Mayorkas’ parole pipeline:
Bensman spoke to several of the migrants as they filed their parole applications:
As she waited with 25 other selected immigrants for her legal ride to America, Maria told the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) she’d left home figuring she would have to pay smugglers to cross her over the border illegally. But up-trail word from friends reached her down-trail by cell phone that the Biden administration had legally admitted them and many others from Mexicali under the new humanitarian parole program.
They told Maria, “This is real. This is really a real program. This is not a magic trick,” she told [Bensman].
Maria came to Mexicali as soon as she could. A local migrant shelter took her in, and while she was fed and housed in relative security, American volunteers, lawyers, and activists helped her collect the documents America required: just the right documented story of woe, a psychologist attesting to suffered traumas and fear of returning home, proof of citizenship and identity, a clear criminal background, need for urgent free American medical treatment, and a sponsor in the U.S. willing to financially support the applicant. The story Maria proffered is that she worked for a government official in Nicaragua whose homosexuality drew death threats from her ex-husband, also a government worker, against her and her boss.
“I had to leave because I would be killed,” she claimed.
On that claimed basis, Maria was now waiting for a Mexican immigration service bus to drive her and 30 others in her group into America, still unable to believe her unlikely good fortune.
“I am so happy, so, so happy,” Maria said.
The parole rules allow people to stay for a year but can be extended. So the award of parole to these economic migrants creates problems because asylum rules exclude economic migrants from getting green cards
But officials are trying to shift migrants out of the cartels’ dangerous and expensive networks into U.S. government-managed pipelines, said Bensman. “There’s a conversion going on, a slow shift from the illegal channel into the legal channel because that [official policy is to] create pathways for safe, orderly, and humane migration,” he said.
Mayorkas’ deputies are trying “to get as many people as they possibly can inside the country, in as many different ways as possible, and this [parole pipeline] way is especially attractive … That’s why this method is ballooning like it is, why they’re having to expand the shelters, they can’t keep up with the demand [from migrants].”
The parole program is facing legal challenges.
The parole pipeline is just one of many ways in which Biden’s deputies are accelerating their extraction of extra renters, consumers, and workers from poor countries for subsequent use in the U.S. economy.
For example, Biden’s deputies have doubled the number of illegal migrants protected by the Temporary Protected Status program, allowed more than 600,000 illegals to sneak across the border, and allowed roughly 2.3 million southern migrants to cross the border. They have also minimized the deportation of illegal migrants and overstaying workers.
The administration is also ramping up the inflow of legal immigrants, visa workers, and illegal workers who arrive on B-1/B-2 tourist visas.
This massive inflow is delivering roughly seven migrants for every 10 births.
This labor inflow shifts the national economy towards investors and employers by forcing down Americans’ wages. It is also boosting rents and housing prices, and it is reducing native-born Americans’ clout in local and national elections. Since the 1990s, the inflow has pushed many native-born Americans out of careers in a wide variety of fields.
The Mexican shelters that feed the parole pipeline are often funded and run by people working for American non-profits, Bensman said, In turn, the non-profits are backed by corporate and progressive donors.
American progressives working in the shelters do not talk, Bensman added, “because if the general public knew about this, they would demand that it be ended immediately.”
‘That’s why this is a gravy train for the nonprofit industrial complex,” Bensman said:
I interviewed a [Mexican] shelter manager in Tijuana that is part of the pipeline on that side. I asked him, “Why do you suppose the nonprofits are fighting with each other for control over this?” … And he said, “Why? Because they’re making money. The nonprofits are all deeply enmeshed in Hollywood … These people are making money by raising funds back in Hollywood, and they’ve got a big revenue stream going on.”
For example, the business-funded group, Al Otra Lado, helps migrants cross the border via the parole pipeline.
The Hollywood-bosted, elite-backed Kids of Need of Defense group also helps migrants get into the parole pipeline.
A huge network of elite-funded, government-funded, non-profits also cares for and feeds migrants. This “Catch and Release Network” also transport migrants to desired locations, and trains them for jobs needed by Americans.
The parole law has been used to let many economic migrants into the United States during 2021 and 2022. It was also used to admit tens of thousands of Afghans.
Mayorkas and his deputies then used the parole claim to admit roughly 100,000 Ukrainians from safe countries in Europe into the United States. Officials are reportedly also using the pipeline to admit Haitian migrants.
BorderReport.com wrote on August 24:
SAN DIEGO (Border Report) — About 120 asylum-seekers who are members of the LGBT community are being allowed into the U.S. on a daily basis.
Enrique Lucero, the director of the Migrant Affairs Office in Tijuana, said they are crossing the border at PedWest, one of two pedestrian crossings at the San Ysidro Port of Entry.
“The migrants must show they have a disability, health issues or have been victims of discrimination or persecution back home,” said Lucero. “This is humanitarian parole.”
Bensman wrote November 21:
Stealthily, perhaps with that in mind, DHS launched one early version of the handoff program in late 2021 in Reynosa, Mexico, where CIS discovered that Mexico was escorting hundreds of giddy immigrants every week for delivery to the Americans through a McAllen port of entry into Texas.
Nowadays, though, the program delivers immigrants, at the least, from Tijuana to San Diego, Agua Prieta to Douglas in Ariz., Juarez to El Paso, Nuevo Laredo to Laredo, Reynosa to McAllen, and Matamoros to Brownsville, the shelter managers say. It’s going on in interior Mexico too, they say.
Extraction Migration
Government officials try to grow the economy by raising exports, productivity, and the birth rate. But officials want rapid results, so they also try to expand the economy by extracting millions of migrants from poor countries to serve as extra workers, consumers, and renters.
This policy floods the labor market and so it shifts vast wealth from ordinary people to older investors, coastal billionaires, and Wall Street. It makes it difficult for ordinary Americans to advance in their careers, get married, raise families, buy homes, or gain wealth.
Extraction Migration slows innovation and shrinks Americans’ productivity. This happens because migration allows employers to boost stock prices by using stoop labor and disposable workers instead of the skilled American professionals and productivity-boosting technology that earlier allowed Americans and their communities to earn more money.
This migration policy also reduces exports because it minimizes shareholder pressure on C-suite executives to take a career risk by trying to grow exports to poor countries.
Migration undermines employees’ workplace rights, and it widens the regional economic gaps between the Democrats’ cheap-labor coastal states and the Republicans’ heartland and southern states.
An economy fueled by Extraction Migration also drains Americans’ political clout over elites and alienates young people. It radicalizes Americans’ democratic civic culture because it gives a moral excuse for wealthy elites and progressives to ignore despairing Americans at the bottom of society, such as drug addicts.
This diversify-and-rule investor strategy is enthusiastically pushed by progressives. They wish to transform the U.S. from a society governed by European-origin civic culture into an economic empire of jealous identity groups overseen by progressive hall monitors. “We’re trying to become the first multiracial, multi-ethnic superpower in the world,” Silicon Valley Rep. Rohit Khanna (D-CA) told the New York Times in March 2022. “It will be an extraordinary achievement … We will ultimately triumph,” he boasted.
But the progressives’ colonialism-like economic strategy kills many migrants. It exploits the poverty of migrants and splits foreign families as it extracts human resources from poor home countries to serve wealthy U.S. investors.
Progressives hide this Extraction Migration economic policy behind a wide variety of noble-sounding explanations and theatrical border security programs. Progressives claim the U.S. is a “Nation of Immigrants,” that economic migrants are political victims, that migration helps migrants more than Americans, and that the state must renew itself by replacing populations.
Similarly, establishment Republicans, media businesses, and major GOP donors hide the skew towards investors by ignoring the pocketbook impact and by touting border chaos, welfare spending, migrant crime, and drug smuggling.
Many polls show the public wants to welcome some immigration. But the polls also show deep and broad public opposition to labor migration and to the inflow of temporary contract workers into the jobs needed by the families of blue-collar and white-collar Americans.
This “Third Rail” opposition is growing, anti-establishment, multiracial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based, bipartisan, rational, persistent, and recognizes the solidarity that American citizens owe to one another.
THE LAWS, LIKE THE BORDERS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS ETHICALLY SQUALID GAMER PARSITE SOCIOPATH LAWYER JOE BIDEN, OR HIS CUBAN GAMER LAWYER MAYORKAS.
President Biden is a man of mediocre intellect who, over almost five decades in national public office, accomplished little to nothing, other than his election to federal offices and becoming rich off the federal teat and various side hustles.
Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas and Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana sued the Biden administration over immigration policy, arguing that so-called enforcement guidelines as developed and administered by the Justice Department and Homeland Security Department violate certain provisions of federal law.
Biden Admin Tells Supreme Court Judges Cannot Strike Down Agency Decisions in Immigration Case
WASHINGTON, DC – The Biden administration argued in a Supreme Court immigration case Tuesday that states have no standing to sue the federal government over illegal immigration policies, and courts lack the power to strike them down anyway.
Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas and Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana sued the Biden administration over immigration policy, arguing that so-called enforcement guidelines as developed and administered by the Justice Department and Homeland Security Department violate certain provisions of federal law.
The states – joined by three dozen more states filing supporting briefs – sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which in 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), authorizes judges to “hold unlawful and set aside” – which means to vacate – agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, “or otherwise not in accordance with law.” It is the law most commonly used to sue federal agencies for acting inconsistently with federal statutes passed by Congress.
At issue are provisions of immigration law where Congress in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) said authorities “shall detain” aliens who are convicted of aggravated felonies. But the Biden administration issued a guidance memo saying that instead aliens should be detained only if the agency determines they are a threat to public safety, listing various factors for making that determination.
Judge Drew Tipton of the Southern District of Texas rendered judgment in favor of the states, vacating (i.e., striking down) the policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The Biden administration argued in response states have no standing to bring such a lawsuit at all in court, and courts lack the constitutional power to do what the states were asking anyway.
“Now it’s our job to say what the law is, not whether or not it can be possibly implemented or whether there are difficulties there,” Chief Justice John Roberts said to U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. “And I don’t think we should change that responsibility just because Congress and the executive can’t agree on something that’s possible to address this problem. I don’t think we should let them off the hook.”
When Roberts explained he thought “shall” in Section 1226 means “shall,” Prelogar responded by saying giving effect to the words of Congress’s immigration law “would be incredibly destabilizing on the ground,” adding that it “would absolutely scramble immigration enforcement efforts on the ground.”
Prelogar also shocked justices across the judicial spectrum by arguing that Section 706 of the APA did not give courts the power to vacate agency actions, despite the fact that there have been thousands of cases doing so over the past 80 years, many of which have been affirmed by the Supreme Court over that lengthy period.
That sweeping claim of executive power to escape judicial review is “fairly radical,” Roberts said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to agree, telling Prelogar of “the conceptual problem I’m having with your argument” that courts do not have power to fully set aside agency regulations and orders, explaining “Congress has said in the APA that in order to make valid and legally binding policies, agencies have to follow certain procedures,” and that when an agency fails to do so “what the agency did is void.”
“And the government has never made this argument in all the years of the APA,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, calling it “a pretty radical rewrite” of the principal federal law that defines the power of federal agencies.
“And I find it pretty astonishing that you come up here and make … [that] the main part of your submission, and I’m going to push back pretty strongly,” Kavanaugh added.
For his part, Justice Samuel Alito balked at the Justice Department’s argument that states lack standing under Article III of the Constitution to sue federal agencies under circumstances like these. He apparently rejected Prelogar’s argument, saying it meant that “an injury sufficient for Article III for purposes for an individual or for a private entity is not sufficient in your view for states,” calling it a “special rule” that “disfavored” states in court.
Justice Elena Kagan also focused on the issue of standing but leaning the opposite direction, expressing skepticism that Texas and Louisiana had standing to bring this matter to court, saying “it’s hard to think of” federal policies that states could not challenge in federal court if they could – as the states did here – come up with a dollar amount of damages the states claim resulted from a federal policy, calling such claims of harm “speculative.”
Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone responded by giving one of what he said were many examples of harm, referencing an illegal alien who was released, and later was arrested again for human trafficking.
“That’s not speculative. It occurred,” Stone insisted.
Kavanaugh also had questions for Stone, looking for a limiting principle for the court’s decision if the justices ruled in favor of the states, saying that he was concerned what the court’s order would say if federal agencies must achieve results that they do not have the resources to accomplish.
Stone replied that is not an issue here, because “there is an on-the-record finding of bad faith,” that the Biden administration was deliberately not trying to achieve the results required by law, arguing that when a court determines that an agency is deliberately not trying to follow the law, that courts can strike down the policy that is inconsistent with how the law is written.
The case has far-reaching consequences beyond immigration, although on that topic alone it would still be a major case. A decision is expected by the end of June.
The case is United States v. Texas, No. 22-58 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Breitbart News senior legal contributor Ken Klukowski is a lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department.
Joe Biden is unfit to be president. Why didn't anyone stop him?
Despite Democrats performing better than expected in the midterm elections just completed, two-thirds of those voters do not want their leader, President Joe Biden, to run for re-election in 2024. Perhaps, by now, like nearly everyone else in the country, they know the real Joe Biden. Just who is he?
President Biden is a man of mediocre intellect who, over almost five decades in national public office, accomplished little to nothing, other than his election to federal offices and becoming rich off the federal teat and various side hustles. He is a thin-skinned, chip-on-the-shoulder, macho swaggerer who, in a Tucker Carlson phrase, "kisses up and spits down." He is a prevaricator, plagiarist, teller-of-tall-tales narcissist who has no respect for the truth, only narratives that advance his interests or portray him favorably. If not a racist, he still sees only through the lens of race and panders, prejudges, or pounces accordingly. Finally, when it comes to young children and women, he just cannot, as my mother used to put it, keep his hands to himself; he may be guilty of much, much worse.
Sadly, as a result of advanced age and cognitive decline, his skills, such as a quick wit, adroit speech, and pleasant countenance, have eroded as his less desirable traits, such as anger, mendacity, and lack of self-control, have worsened. No wonder people are discovering the real Joe Biden.
Senators who served with him always knew. Nonetheless, none said to another, "Joe's a nice enough guy, but he must never be president." We can't let him have access to the nuclear codes, run the largest law enforcement operation in the world, or make life-and-death decisions about sending our Armed Forces into or out of harm's way. All senators, Democrats and Republicans, refused to hold Biden accountable and make him, at least as to any plan he had for the White House, persona non grata.
Nonetheless, there is historic precedent for such nonpartisan and patriotic action.
On August 7, 1974, my once and future boss, U.S. Senator Clifford P. Hansen (R-Wyo.), joined a few of his Republican colleagues, most famously Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) and Senator Hugh Scott (R-Pa.), on a journey to the White House to urge President Richard Nixon to resign. They told him, "not only had he 'lost' the congressional support of his own party and his natural allies among conservative Democrats, [but] also that they would actually convict him at trial and remove him from office." Nixon resigned the next day.
On New Year's Eve in 1974, Justice William O. Douglas, one of the Supreme Court's longest-serving jurists, suffered a severe stroke in Hawaii. After months at Walter Reed Hospital, he returned to the Court, but he was nearly incapacitated, yet he hung on into the Court's new term on the first Monday in October. On October 17, seven of the eight remaining justices agreed that no case would be decided by a five-four vote with Douglas in the majority. Only Justice Byron White of Colorado disagreed and pressed for Douglas's retirement. A month later, after 36 years on the bench, Justice Douglas did so.
In 1988, President George H.W. Bush nominated former U.S. senator John Tower (R-Texas) as his secretary of defense. Senator Tower, who served from 1961 to 1985, was the first Republican senator to represent Texas since Reconstruction. He chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee, later was chief U.S. negotiator at the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks in Switzerland, and in 1986 chaired the Tower Commission inquiry into the Iran-Contra Affair. All that was not enough to prevent the Senate from rejecting his nomination, given its concerns over his alcoholism and other issues.
Years ago, on a visit from Denver to D.C., I met with an old friend who once served as an attorney to the Senate Judiciary Committee and thus had frequent interactions with Biden. Knowing he was aware of my negative view of the senator, I asked his opinion. "He's always been good to me," he responded. "That's a pretty low bar," I replied. "It's my test," he shrugged. So it must have been for the senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who knew the real Joe Biden for nearly five decades. Now all Americans are paying a terrible price for their willingness to set such low standards.
Mr. Pendley, a Wyoming attorney, served in the administrations of presidents Reagan and Trump and for 30 years provided pro bono representation, including before the Supreme Court of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment