Aug 31

Mass Immigration, Not Trump, Is the Real Threat to Conservative America

Mark Krikorian writes this morning at that contrary to establishment “conservatives” including Charles Krauthammer, George Will and Fred Barnes who warn that Donald Trump poses a threat to the GOP, the true long-term problem facing conservatism is immigration: “… if mass legal immigration is permitted to continue, the Right is finished regardless of what Trump does or says.”

“If the federal government continues to operate at its current pace — about 1 million green cards issued per year — it will create nearly 15 million potential new voters over the next two decades, disproportionately liberal, as I will explain below.” Krikorian notes that an amnesty bill would roughly double that number.

“…survey after survey after survey hammers the point home: Immigration increases the electoral power of the Left.”  Surveys consistently show immigrants and their children favor affirmative action, bigger government, more gun control, and other liberal policies.  Krikorian explains why: “… they tend to come from countries where government plays a larger role than here; they tend to settle in urban areas with left-wing political cultures; and they disproportionately benefit from liberal policies such as expansive welfare and affirmative action.”

Read the rest here:

Posted 8/31/15 by Andrew Lewis


Permanent link to this article:

Aug 27

We Can’t Save the World with Open Borders (Part II)

On average, the lifetime fiscal impact of the average immigrant is negative $3,000, says the National Research Council. But the NRC goes on to say that descendants of the immigrant make a positive contribution of $83,000. . . . Even illegal immigration helps delay the bankruptcy of Social Security. . . . [L]et’s not forget that immigrants bring us new ideas. They invent more things than native-born Americans. Immigrants gave us Google. . . . [Ann] Coulter says that the new immigrants don’t assimilate the way Europeans did. . . . But I pointed out that immigrants from Nigeria, Jamaica and Ghana are more likely to be employed than native-born Americans and twice as likely to get a college degree.” – Why This Libertarian (And Others) Love Immigration, John Stossel,, 8/12/15.

Fact Check: In the first part of this two-part series, we examined Stossel’s apparent belief that the U.S. can uplift the entire world with open borders. This part deals with his claims about immigration always offering us positive benefits.

In 1997 the National Research Council (NRC) did a study—the most extensive to date—on the costs and benefits of immigration. It concluded, as Stossel admits, that immigrant households are a net fiscal loss. That estimate was based on measurable data. The estimate of a $83,000 net benefit from immigrants’ descendants, in contrast, are essentially guesswork and speculation about the future.

Illegal aliens do pay some money into Social Security, but overall what they pay in taxes is less than what they receive in government services, as shown by a Heritage Foundation study. Furthermore, if illegal aliens get amnesty, they will have access to increased tax-paid benefits, including Social Security.

Certainly immigrants may bring new ideas, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are good ideas. Many immigrants, most particularly illegal aliens, don’t share our understanding of the importance of the rule of law. Often today they come from countries where personal favoritism and family ties trump any concerns about legality and fairness.

Stossel’s claim that immigrants “invent more things” than Americans begs for documentation—which he doesn’t provide. As for immigrants starting key U.S. companies, sometimes this only means that they are among the founders, and not the sole founders. One of Google’s two founders was native-born.

Stossel cherry picks immigrants—and statistics about them—from Nigeria, Jamaica, and Ghana to prove his point. What he leaves out is that immigrants from those countries—only 2.7 percent of the foreign-born population—are unrepresentative of immigrants as a whole. Natives of Mexico are the most numerous group (28 percent) and they are less likely than natives to work and have college degrees. Overall, immigrants don’t exceed natives in these two categories. Also, immigrants from Nigeria, Jamaica, and Ghana receive welfare at a higher rate than natives. And only the Nigerians are significantly more likely to have a college degree.

If Stossel thinks that immigrants are really assimilating, he would do well to pull his head out of the libertarian clouds and consider the reality that in many fundamental ways they are not.

Permanent link to this article:

Aug 27

Coulter Again Corrects O’Reilly and Guests on Anchor Babies

In Wednesday’s column, Ann Coulter ridicules Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly and two recent guests he selected to support his view that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.  She notes that establishment GOP lawyers are hungry for jobs in a Jeb Bush administration and are glad to denounce Trump.  Combining case law and humor, she exposes the weak foundation of the “birthright citizenship” doctrine.

Get your constitutional education for the day with some laughs here:

Posted 8/27/15 by Margaret Hull


Permanent link to this article:

Aug 27

Jeb, O’Reilly Unaware of Ike’s Mass Round-Up Of Illegals?

 Referring to attacks by Jeb Bush and Bill O’Reilly on Donald Trump’s plan to deport millions of illegal aliens, columnist Jeffrey Lord asked Wednesday on “How can a serious presidential candidate and a major cable television host be so repeatedly ignorant of such a significant moment in American history?”

“…[T]hat moment in history began on June 17, 1954, when, at the personal direction of President Dwight D. Eisenhower – the fabled American hero of the D-Day invasion – illegal immigrants in America were rounded up and deported back to Mexico.  Exactly as Donald Trump is proposing to do today.”

Read more here:

Posted 8/27/15 by Andrew Lewis

Permanent link to this article:

Aug 26

The Originalist Case Against Birthright Citizenship

Daniel Horowitz on Tuesday posted a must-read article for lawyers and those interested in constitutional theory, The Originalist Case Against Birthright Citizenship, at  It is a scholarly study of the court cases that misinterpreted the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, leading to a doctrine that ignores both the intent and the text of the amendment.

Read it here:

Posted 8/26/15 by Margaret Hull

Permanent link to this article:

Aug 26

One of Every l2 Kids Born in U.S. Is Anchor Baby

How huge is the problem of illegal aliens giving birth to children that are given American citizenship?  One anchor baby is delivered every 93 seconds — roughly 340,000 every year — according to a Pew Research Center study.


Once the illegal alien mother delivers her baby (usually at taxpayer expense in a public hospital), the mother can collect welfare on behalf of the child, the child will be educated at taxpayer expense, when the child becomes an adult he or she will be able to obtain green cards for the illegal alien parents.  Oh, and don’t forget affirmative action preferences in college admissions and job applications and promotions.

While opinion polls show a solid majority of American voters oppose automatic citizenship for children born to illegals in this country, any citizen or candidate for office who calls for reform of this bizarre practice that rewards and encourages illegal immigration is denounced as “extreme” and “un-American” by the ruling political establishment and media.

Posted 8/26/15 by Andrew Lewis

Permanent link to this article:

Aug 25

CIS: 7l Percent of Illegal Alien Households with Kids Get Welfare

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) found that 71 percent of illegal alien households with children receive some kind of welfare. Commonly this is the case when the children are born in the U.S. Under the legal provision of birthright citizenship, these children are counted as citizens, and are eligible for welfare on the same basis as other citizens. Each year, according to CIS, between 350,000 and 400,000 of these children were born in the U.S. Only 39 percent of native-headed households with children receive welfare.


Permanent link to this article:

Aug 24

‘Anchor Babies’ Hot Issue

Donald Trump’s immigration plan, like almost everything he does or says, stirred up a hornets’ nest — with perhaps the loudest buzzing surrounding his proposal to end automatic citizenship for children born to illegal alien women.  These “anchor babies” are not only given American citizenship at birth, but under the nepotistic, family chain immigration quota system created by Congress, their law-breaking parents and other relatives get preferential treatment for legal admission.

Here are three recent articles on the subject:

“Media Ignores Constitutional Experts Debunking Birthright Citizenship”

“Immigration: A Divisive Issue for the Political Class, Not the People”

“17 Grades for 17 Candidates: Anchor Babies”

Posted 8/24/15 by Andrew Lewis

Permanent link to this article:

Aug 24

14th Amendment Allows Reform of Birthright Citizenship

John C. Eastman, law professor at Chapman University School of Law and also director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, presents a convincing case that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not require citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.  Writing today on, he details the legislative history and intent of the amendment, as well as the sparse case law, and concludes that children of illegal aliens born on U.S.  soil are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the way intended by the 14th Amendment, and therefore not automatic citizens.

As soon as Donald Trump called for a change in the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause that gives automatic U.S. citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil, even when the mother is an illegal alien or a foreign tourist, open borders advocates such as the Wall Street Journal attacked with the false charge that Trump wanted to “repeal the 14th Amendment.”  An honest debate would be over the question: what does the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause mean and require?

Professor Eastman’s laborious analysis of the debate over the 14th Amendment shows that the “jurisdiction” clause refers to persons such as aliens (or Indians at that time) having allegiance to some government other than the United States.  He concludes:

“So, truth be told, the 14th Amendment does not need to be repealed in order to fix the problem of birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants.  It just needs to be understood and applied correctly.”

“Birthright citizenship, as currently practiced, allows those who continue to owe allegiance to a foreign power to demand American citizenship for their children, unilaterally and as a result of their illegal conduct.”

Read the article:

Posted 8/24/15 by Margaret Hull

Permanent link to this article:

Aug 23

Yes, GOP Should Follow Trump On Immigration

Rich Lowry, National Review editor and syndicated columnist, writing Wednesday in Politico, “Yes, Pander to Trump on Immigration,” contends that the bombastic Trump has stumbled into an immigration position that is much better for the nation than the one favored by the political establishment.

“What Trump offers is an entirely different framework for considering the issue.  It is populist rather than elitist, and nationalist rather than cosmopolitan.  It rejects the status quo rather than attempting to codify it.  It puts enforcement first and dares to ask whether current high levels of legal immigration serve the country’s interest.  In short, it takes a needed sledgehammer to the lazy establishment consensus on immigration.”

Read the rest here:

Posted 8/22/15 by Andrew Lewis

Permanent link to this article:

Page 1 of 14712345...102030...Last »