May 23

Zuckerberg Group Pitches Amnesty

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg launched the open borders group Its president Todd Schulte recently stated that efforts to stop illegal immigration “hurt public safety.” He also claimed that amnesty for illegal aliens would “make our country safer.” Although the billionaire Zuckerberg is not partial to walls on our border, he has a large wall protecting his own personal property.

Read more at and

Permanent link to this article:

May 23

Huge Number of Visa Overstays Now Biggest Source of New Illegal Aliens

The source of illegal immigration into the U.S. has shifted away from the southwest border and into the country’s air and sea ports, where more than 54 million visitors checked in last year — and nearly 630,000 of them didn’t go home, according to new numbers released Monday.  Known as visa overstays, these illegal aliens present a different challenge than the border crossers.

“This report shows that we have a problem with visa overstays in the United States,” a senior administration official said in briefing reporters, vowing to step up enforcement to cut down the violations.

Student visas and exchange visitors are the worst violators, with some countries averaging overstay rates above 20%.  Libya, a hotbed for Muslim terrorists, saw 43% of its “students” refuse to leave on time, while 75% of Eritrean students overstayed, disappearing into our nation.

Homeland Security officials admit that almost none of the visa overstays are investigated.

At least five of the deadly 9-11 terrorists were visa overstays.

Read more here:

Permanent link to this article:

May 22

Labor Force Level Declines for Natives without College

The official unemployment rate, 4.9 percent for the first quarter of 2017, is a vast improvement over the high percentages following the recession beginning in 2007. Nevertheless, the official figure minimizes the true picture of unemployment, especially for those of limited education. One way is not counting people of working age who haven’t recently looked for a job. If they are factored in, the labor force participation of all natives of working age without a college degree has declined since the recession began, from 73.8 percent in the first quarter of 2007 to 69.8 percent in the first quarter of this year. In 2000 the total was 76.1 percent. Immigration is one reason for this trend.


Permanent link to this article:

May 19

Democrats Attack Davis-Oliver Act

House Democrats are expressing strong opposition to the Davis-Oliver Act recently introduced by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) (See previous news item.) The bill would penalize cities that break federal law with their sanctuary policies while enacting other steps to strengthen internal enforcement of immigration law.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA ) stated, “We have to call it Trump’s mass deportation act. It is a hard anti-immigrant enforcement only proposal. It is a welcome mat to racism. . . .  A repudiation of the very values that have defined our great nation since its inception.” Jayapal didn’t explain how enforcing laws against lawbreakers is racist, or why it is contrary to American values to do so.


Permanent link to this article:

May 18

Does the Chronicle Believe in Immigration Laws?

More Misinformation from the Media:

When it comes to immigration and border security, the Nativist-in-Chief in the White House is committed, it seems, to a strategy that relies on spreading chaos, fear and debilitating apprehension throughout immigrant communities. His immigration and border security agencies feel unleased. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in particular seem to be taking a perverse pride in the fact that the acronym ICE on the back of their navy-blue uniforms has come to symbolize bullying law-enforcement tactics we more commonly associate with authoritarian regimes in other countries. . . .

Here in Houston, the latest outrage involved two doctors from India who were informed by immigration officials last week they had 24 hours to leave the United States. Never mind that both were legally working in Houston. . . . Immigration Reality, Houston Chronicle, 4/6/17. Link: here.

Fact Check:  “Nativist” is a slur word that immigration advocates commonly hurl at anyone who suggests that we should abide by the rule of law and enforce immigration law, or that we might reduce our current level of legal immigration, at the highest sustained level in our history, to a more reasonable level. The implication of the word is that the mere natives of a country, also known as citizens, have no primary right to determine what kind of society they will have.

And if foreigners are residing illegally in our country, then why shouldn’t they fear the force of our law? Basically all Trump has done is step up immigration law enforcement—largely abandoned under the Obama Administration—with a focus on deporting dangerous criminals. The Trump Administration also has proposed to cut federal funds to jurisdictions which violate federal law with sanctuary policies, and it has proposed to delay refugees from terrorist-sponsoring countries so that they can be properly vetted.

If these minimal steps generate such outrage from the Chronicle, one might reasonably ask if the editorialists of that newspaper believe in any kind of immigration law enforcement. Their writing provides clues that they don’t. One example is their reference to “immigrant communities.” The word immigrant generally refers to someone who comes here legally, but the Chronicle’s usage reference clearly includes illegal aliens as well. By conflating the two, the Chronicle implies that the law that distinguishing between the two really doesn’t matter.

Another clue is the harsh and unbalanced condemnation of ICE. As the Chronicle tells it, ICE is not a duly appointed agency enforcing legitimate laws—it’s simply acting as a gang of bullies, scarcely different from storm troopers. Yes, it appears that ICE made a mistake with the two doctors, but one it corrected. To err is human, and a mistake by law enforcement doesn’t invalidate law enforcement—unless you believe that the laws it upholds are invalid.

If the Chronicle, and other mass immigration advocates, truly believe that immigration laws are improper, it would be nice if they would openly say so and remove all doubt. But they won’t because that would be an admission that they don’t believe in America as a sovereign nation where citizens rule. That would be bad for newspaper readership. For journalists with an open-borders globalist perspective, it is far more expedient to imply your agenda rather than state it.


Permanent link to this article:

May 17

Enforcement Measure Introduced in House

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) has introduced legislation to improve immigration law enforcement. It is H.R. 2431, also known as the Davis-Oliver act, in memory of two law enforcement officers who were killed by illegal aliens. Labrador is vice-chairman of the House Judicial Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee.

Among its provisions, H.R. 2431 legally clarifies the right of localities to assist immigration law enforcement, penalizes sanctuary jurisdictions, and authorizes the hiring of 12,500 more ICE officers.


Permanent link to this article:

May 16

Kobach Appointed to Election Commission

The Trump Administration has appointed Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach as the Vice Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The commission will investigate charges of voter fraud, including voting by non-citizen immigrants and illegal aliens. Kobach has long advocated effective enforcement of immigration laws, which has prompted heavy criticism from illegal alien advocates.

In response to these critics, who often resort to name calling, Kobach observed that “When . . . they don’t have any arguments left. . . . They just attack you as a person. They call you a racist; they call you a vote suppressor. They just come up with these stupid names.”


Permanent link to this article:

May 15

Trump Backslides on Legal Immigration

President Trump seems to be going back on his campaign promise to consider a reduction of legal immigration. At more than one million a year, it is at the highest sustained level in our country’s history.  An interviewer for the Economist, pro-globalist magazine, asked Trump, “Do you want to curb legal immigration? . . . [are you] not looking to reduce the numbers?” The president replied, “No, no, no, no, we want people coming in legally. No, very strongly.”

Washington observers say Trump is feeling strong pressure from pro-immigration interests, and that pressure from his base of supporters will be necessary to put him back on course.


Permanent link to this article:

May 12

Legal Immigrants Oppose Sanctuary

The New York Times reported on the effort of Democrat politicians in Howard County, Maryland, to make the county a sanctuary jurisdiction to benefit illegal aliens. It noted that the politicians were surprised that a number of legal immigrants in the country testified against the proposal. Apparently they didn’t consider that people who play by the rules resent those who don’t.


Permanent link to this article:

May 11

Trump Follows the Rule of Law

More Misinformation from the Media:

President Trump’s immigration enforcement initiatives, such as they are have had a rough run in the federal courts . . . Trump wrote, “See you in the Supreme Court.” . . . That followed a noxious broadside on the courts for Press Secretary Sean Spicer that ‘the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our nation.’ No, a federal judge looked at the administration’s bullying threat to withhold funds that it had no statutory authority to withhold and declared it unconstitutional. That is the very definition of upholding the rule of law. . . .  Congress [should] revive the 2013 comprehensive immigration bill . . . .  At the risk of belaboring the obvious, immigration—despite society’s occasional surges of xenophobia—made this country. Not only does it define the nation’s past, it will define the future as well. – Trump Needs a Better Approach to Immigration Because Bullying Isn’t Cutting It, Los Angeles Times, The Times Editorial Board, 4/29/17. [Link]

Fact Check: Contrary to the Times’ claim the president does have statutory authority to penalize sanctuary cities. It derives from the Illegal Immigration and Immigration Responsibility Act, passed by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, which prohibits states and other jurisdictions from refusing to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement. Under our system of government, Congress makes laws and the president is supposed to enforce them.

This is precisely what President Trump did when he threated to cut federal funds to sanctuary cities for violating the law. Just how this constitutes “bullying” is difficult to discern. While it is true that a lower court can rule an action unconstitutional, as one in instance did, our system of law allows for court rulings to be appealed. Are the Times editorialists unaware of this fact? By proposing to appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, President Trump is acting in perfect accord with the rule of law.

If the Times editorialists really care about that rule, it’s surprising that they want a revival of the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform legislation. That proposed measure displayed contempt for the rule of law by offering legal status and eventual American citizenship to millions of illegal aliens—in effect rewarding them for breaking our laws.

The notion that “immigration made this country” is one of those breezy immigration clichés deigned to short-circuit critical thinking. It evades such questions as to whether the level of immigration we had in the past is appropriate to our future as a developed country. It implies that just because some immigration is beneficial that unlimited immigration is beneficial—which is like saying that because a glass of wine a day is healthy that binge drinking vodka will make a person much more healthy.

If it can be said that “immigration made America” in a good sense, it can just as well be said that immigration restriction was beneficial too. A primary case in point was the restrictionist legislation in the 1920s which sharply reduced the massive immigration of the preceding decades. That sharp reduction helped immigrants assimilate and boosted wage levels—which enabled immigrants and their children to move into the middle class. No doubt the same consequences would follow if we cut our massive level of immigration today.

Permanent link to this article:

Page 1 of 20212345...102030...Last »