Aug 17

Viewers Support Ingraham

Left-wing critics vehemently attacked Fox News host Laura Ingram for her recent statement that most Americans don’t like the “massive demographic changes” forced on them by mass immigration. Some of the critics labeled her a “Nazi” and “absolute evil.”

Evidently viewers don’t agree.  In the week following her statement, drew a larger audience for her time slot than both CNN and MSNBC.

Read more

Permanent link to this article:

Aug 16

Bannon Makes Sense

The Quote Below: More Misinformation from the Media:

“Since his ouster from the White House a year ago Steve Bannon has been barnstorming across Europe meeting with figures like the former leader of the U.K. Independence Party, Nigel Farage; the French Rassemblement National head, Marine Le Pen; and the far-right Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban. Last month Mr. Bannon announced plans to establish a foundation to support right-wing populist movements on the continent.

“Mr. Bannon isn’t driving Europe’s ever-growing xenophobia. But his ability to plant roots there and the potential that he and others see in tying together country-level anti-immigrant sentiment into a continentwide movement are both alarming and, for those of us in the United States, a reality check.

“Despite the rise of Donald Trump, views around immigration in the United States seem to favor the left. . . . [A 2018 Pew survey found] 2018. In June, only 24 percent said the amount of legal immigration into the United States should be decreased. The situation is different in much of Europe. According to the International Organization for Migration, 48 percent of Europeans believe that migration should be reduced. . . .

“There are several factors at work here, but one is clearly the continued relevance of the civil rights movement and anti-racist struggles, which won a more diverse and inclusive America. That’s no excuse for complacency or discontent about how far that progress has gone. . . .

“If Democrats don’t build an economic message for the working class, black and brown voters won’t turn out for elections, and enough white ones who do might drift toward the siren call of right-wing populism. And then the Steve Bannons of the world won’t have to look to Europe to fulfill their political dreams.” – Fighting Bannonism at Home and Abroad, The New York Times, Meagan Day and Bhaskar Sunkara, 8/7/18 [Link]


Fact Check of Quote: This article uses the manipulative language so commonly employed by immigration enthusiasts. Thus it is “xenophobia” and “far right” for the people of a country to preserve their historic make-up, character, and culture by democratic means. That is sensible, mainstream, and moderate. The true extremism is the totalitarian effort of the European Union and its lackies to submerge the identities of European countries with mass immigration.

The Pew survey did show that a minority of Americans want legal immigration cut, but a Harvard-Harris poll at the beginning of the year found quite the opposite. Its finding was that 81 percent of Americans wanted legal immigration, now at more than a million a year, to go down to one million or less per year. Perhaps the reason for the difference is that respondents of the latter poll were given specific figures to express their preferences.

The authors linkage of mass immigration is to the Civil Rights movement is most ironic. That movement stressed the importance of American citizenship, affirming that Americans as citizens should have equal rights. Supporters of mass illegal immigration don’t seem to care about citizenship at all, and make little distinction between citizens and illegal aliens. Another goal of the civil rights movement was improving the economic status of minority citizens. Mass legal immigration works directly against that goal by competing with them for jobs and social welfare benefits.

If the Democrats really cared about poor and working minority citizens, cutting legal and illegal immigration is exactly what they would do. But will the Democrats endorse this economic message? Not likely. Their current policy works to keep minority citizens poor and alienated. That bad for them, but good for Democrat politicians who want a reliable voting bloc.

A prominent Democratic strategist has openly endorsed the strategy of mass immigration as a means for his party to seize and maintain power. Many Republicans don’t seem to care, as they push mass immigration to secure cheap labor for unscrupulous business interests.

Permanent link to this article:

Aug 15

Sessions to DOJ: Cut SPLC Ties

The Justice Department sometimes works with the radical left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization that generally labels support for immigration restriction as “hate.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions says the time has come for this collusion to stop. He  noted that the SPLC uses hate designations “as a weapon [to] bully and intimidate” individuals and groups it doesn’t like. ” Critics have described the SPLC as a neo-communist organization.


Permanent link to this article:

Aug 14

Yoder Invites Mass Migration

Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, strongly criticized the amendment to the 2019 spending bill authored by Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS). Yoder’s amendment would reverse the asylum reforms of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and reinstitute the Obama Administration policy of releasing illegal aliens with their promises to show up for asylum hearings. Kirsanow affirmed that the amendment would encourage “massive waves” of foreigners to enter the United States and thereby depress wages of poor American workers.



Permanent link to this article:

Aug 13

Taxpayers Mostly Fund Refugee ‘Volags’

The U.S. refugee resettlement involves “charitable” organizations called “volags” (voluntary agencies). A study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) notes that these organizations have a vested financial interest in increasing refugee resettlement. Despite their name, most of their funding is not voluntary. Very large shares of their funding comes from American taxpayers.

The study notes that “These volags are funded, for the most part, by the U.S. government. Government funding ranges from a low of 58.5 percent to a high of 97.3 percent.  .  .  . Yearly compensations for the heads of these organizations range from a low of $132,000 to a high of $671,749.”


Permanent link to this article:

Aug 10

Ingraham: Immigration Erases America

Fox News Host Laura Ingraham stated that “In some parts of the country it does seem that the America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people. And they’re changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don’t like. Now much of this is related to both illegal and, in some cases, legal immigration.  .  .  .”


Permanent link to this article:

Aug 09

Open Borders Are Lunacy

More Misinformation from the Media:

President Trump’s recent tweets against open borders comes as no surprise. . . . Trump, however, has it exactly backwards: the solution to America’s immigration problems is open borders, under which the United States imposes no immigration restrictions at all. . . .

Expenditure on the welfare state will contract because even if immigrants vote for welfare spending, existing residents will vote for less generous benefits. . . . Immigrants will not flood America, although the rate of immigration might increase. . . . Crime will not skyrocket. Available evidence shows that immigrants are no more crime-prone than natives. . . .

U.S. culture will not change dramatically. America’s immigrants have a long history of assimilation, and  most have at least some affinity for American values. . . . Even if values and culture change, so what? That happens in free societies. Who says America’s current values—some of them deeply evil—are the right ones?

America has nothing to fear, and much to gain from open borders. – Forget the Wall Already, It’s Time for the U.S. to Have Open Borders, USA Today Opinion, Jeffery Miron, 7/31/18 [Link]

Fact Check: Immigrants wouldn’t flood America? Immigration today, averaging more than one million a year for more than twenty years, is at the highest sustained level in our history. And the author admits that this rate of flooding might even increase. Most likely, that increase would be considerable as revealed by a international Gallup poll a few years ago. It found that 150 million adults abroad would like to move to the United States. That, however, would only be the start because these people no doubt would like to bring their spouses and minor children. Maybe others would come later.

The initial total could be at least as high as 350 million, more than our total current population. With open borders we extend the invitation for all of them to come as soon as they can. Many or most would come from poor countries as they do low. No doubt they would find our welfare system appealing and would cast their votes accordingly. Does the author really imagine that native-born voters could withstand this electoral tide? Also promoting poverty and welfare use would be the wage suppression caused by mass immigration.

The author claims that open borders would not boost crime by stating that immigrants are not more crime-prone than natives. This may be true for legal immigrants, but this proves the opposite of the author’s point. Legal immigrants aren’t particularly crime-prone precisely because they are vetted by our immigration system to screen out people with criminal backgrounds. With open borders there would be no screening.

The author’s most outrageous observation is that the American people should have no right to decide what the character and culture of their country should be. In effect, they must put everyone’s freedom of movement ahead of their right as Americans to decide democratically what the culture and character their country should be. The author apparently doesn’t care much about American freedom because he doesn’t really care much about America as a sovereign nation.

His perspective, as an associate of the Cato Institute, is libertarian, the ideology that views human as atomized economic units with no other concern than self-interest. In the libertarian calculus there is little provision for such affections as lover of heritage, love of country, duty to community, or concern for future generations. The author maintains that America has some evil values, and he is right about that. Examples are the myopia and greed of some Americans that blinds them to the patent lunacy of open borders.

Permanent link to this article:

Aug 08

Trump Plans ‘Public Charge’ Enforcement

Under the law prospective immigrants who are likely to become “public charges” (i.e.,  dependent on public assistance) can be denied admission, and those who are admitted and later become public charges can be deported. It is a law, however, which is rarely enforced. The Trump Administration is making plans to change this situation.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security stated: “The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S are self-sufficient. Any proposed changes would ensure that the government takes the responsibility of being good stewards of taxpayer funds seriously and adjudicates immigration benefit requests in accordance with the law.”


Permanent link to this article:

Aug 07

Most Refugees Not in Danger

The Center for Immigration Studies cites data from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) showing that “For most refugees, resettlement is not a matter of life an death.” Of the refugees it submitted for resettlement in 2017, only 1.1 percent were in “emergency” status and only 6.4 percent were in “urgent” status. The remaining 92.5 were classified as “normal” status, which the UNHCR defines as “[circumstances] where there are no immediate medical, social, or security concerns which would merit expedited processing.”


Permanent link to this article:

Aug 06

Arrested Aliens Received DACA

A common narrative of the media is that the recipients of the DACA amnesty are all young people who deserve permanent residence in America and a path to citizenship. Nevertheless, many critics of the program noted that the screening procedures of the program were lax. Now a study by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has found that eight percent of DACA recipients had arrest records for crimes at the time of their approval for DACA, and that 13 percent were arrested foe additional crimes after their approval.

USCIS Director L. Francis Cissa noted that “The truth is that we let those with criminal arrests for sexually assaulting a minor, kidnapping, human trafficking, child pornography, and even murder be protected from removal.”


Permanent link to this article: