May 08

Poll: Americans Want Less Immigration

A survey by The Polling Company Inc. found that most Americans want less immigration. People surveyed were told that the U.S. now admits one million legal immigrants  a year, and were given six options as to how many they thought should be admitted. The largest percentage (49 percent) chose 250,000 or less. Only 17 percent supported the current level or more.

By a margin of 63 percent to 20 percent, respondents opposed an amnesty for illegal aliens in the DACA category unless there were substantial cuts in legal immigration and the requirement that businesses use the E-Verify system to determine if the workers they hire are legal residents.

Read more

Permanent link to this article:

May 07

Orban Pushes Amendment

With his party now holding two-thirds of the Hungarian parliament, Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban is pushing for a constitutional amendment to limit immigration. The amendment would prevent enactment of policies by the European Union that would change the religious and ethnic makeup of Hungary.

Said Orban, “We will defend [our] Christian culture, and we will not give the country to foreigners. I feel obliged to implement this constitutional amendment now.” The Prime Minister also accused billionaire currency speculator George Soros of being a major force to erase European identity with mass migration. “George Soros,” said Orban, “has an army of shadows working in Hungary. We want to unmask it. We want to show that migration is not a human rights issue, but a national security issue.”


Permanent link to this article:

May 04

Illegal Immigration Increases

Illegal immigration across the Mexican border was 230 percent higher during April of this year than April of 2017. A major reason is that illegal aliens are becoming more aware of the “catch and release” policy the Border Patrol has to follow. Illegal aliens who claim asylum under this policy are commonly released on their promise to show up for an asylum hearing. Often they don’t show up. Their claim was just a ruse to get into the U.S.

Brandon Judd, president of the Border Patrol Council, estimates that 75 percent of illegal aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol get catch and release. This loophole, he maintains, encourages illegal immigration. He noted , “If you can cross the border illegally without any consequence, why not? As long as the catch and release policy-program exists, large numbers of people are going to cross the border illegally.”


Permanent link to this article:

May 03

NYT Shows Anti-Trump Animus

More Misinformation from the Media:

The first term of the Supreme court is wrapping up with a lawsuit that epitomizes the nature of the person occupying the Oval Office. . . . [T]he justices will hear oral arguments . . . in a challenge to the legality and constitutionality of President Trump’s travel ban, which indefinitely bars 150 million people, a vast majority of them Muslim, from entering the United States. . . .

The government’s response to the courts is, in short, butt out. Mr. Trump can exclude whomever he wants in order to protect the country from attack, and no judge may second guess him. That’s an astonishing claim of unchecked executive authority. It also contradicts the structure of federal immigration law, which is the province of Congress. No one is saying that the president is powerless to protect the nation from attack. What we are saying is that that he must do so without violating the law or the Constitution. . . .

[A]nyone with a passing awareness of American politics knows what is at the root of the travel ban: Mr. Trump special animus against Muslims. . . . – Will the Court Stand Up to Donald Trump? — The New York Times, The Editorial Board, 4/23/18 [Link]

Fact Check:  The Times makes two arguments against the Trump travel ban, that it is based on “animus” and that it usurps the authority of Congress. The animus argument is a disturbing trend in American law. It claims that a statute or a policy may be overturned if judges determine that its author is motivated hostility toward a particular group, usually one favored by politically correct bias. It matters not, in this theory, if the law or policy has a perfectly sound legal basis. Essentially it is an attempt to replace the rule of law with ideology and political expediency.

In any case, the travel ban hardly proves that Trump hates Muslims. Certainly he has noticed the connection between Islamic dogma and terrorism. What honest and knowledgeable person hasn’t? But that’s hardly proof of animus. The travel ban permits travel from most Muslim countries. It covers only five Muslim countries, and two that are non-Muslim. The president believes these countries pose particular problems.

Does he have the legal authority to his ban. The Times is correct in saying that federal immigration law is “the province of Congress.” But its editoralists fail to mention that Congress has delegated the president the authority that Mr. Trump has exercised. The relevant statute is Section212 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182 (f). It states:

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The wording is clear. The president may exclude “any aliens or any class of aliens” that he deems appropriate. There is no wording about whether or not he might have “animus” toward them.

What is most interesting about the Times’ claim against Trump’s authority is its blatant hypocrisy. Some years ago, Congress voted not to grant amnesty to illegal aliens in the DACA category. Ignoring the intent of Congress, President Obama ignored the constitutional separation of powers and simply decreed passage of DACA. Prior to that he often admitted that he didn’t have the right to do so. Has this usurpation of authority bothered the Times? Not at all. It maintains that Obama had the “authority to set immigration-enforcement priorities.” And besides that, said the Times, Obama had to act in the absence of congressional action because it was “the only humane choice.”

One thing is plain for sure. The hypocrites who write editorials for the Times have a special animus toward Donald Trump—and any sensible proposal to reform our dysfunctional immigration policies.

Permanent link to this article:

May 02

Texas Leads Challenge to DACA

Texas is leading a legal challenge to the DACA amnesty, a legalization of some illegal aliens unilaterally decreed by former President Obama. President Trump has tried to phase out DACA, but recent federal court rulings have upheld the program. The action of Texas, joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia, will serve as a challenge to those rulings.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated that “Texas has argued for years that the federal executive branch lacks the power to unilaterally grant unlawfully present aliens lawful presence and work authorization. Left intact, DACA sets a dangerous precedent by giving the executive branch sweeping authority to ignore the laws passed by Congress and change our nation’s immigration laws to suit a president’s own policy preferences.”


Permanent link to this article:

May 01

Taxpayers Fund Illegal Alien Health Care

Although federal policy seeks to prevent illegal aliens from accessing taxpayer-funded health care, specifically Medicaid and Obamacare, they still receive substantial support for the use of medical services. An article in Forbes magazine calculates that “All told Americans cross-subsidize health care for unauthorized immigrants to the tune of $18.5 billion a year. O this total, federal taxpayers provided $11.2 billion in subsidized care to unauthorized immigrants in 2016.”


Permanent link to this article:

Apr 30

Migrant ‘Caravan’ Arrives at Border

More than one hundred and fifty members of the migrant “caravan” have arrived at the U.S. border at Tijuana, Mexico. They will try to gain entry into the United States by claiming asylum. Critics of this strategy note that if these Central Americans were truly seeking refuge from persecution, they could could have requested it in Mexico. The reason they want it here is that the U.S. offers more benefits and economic opportunities than Mexico.


Permanent link to this article:

Apr 27

Expert: Reform Refugee Program

Mary Doetsch is a retired veteran of the State Department with long experience in the refugee program. She says it is broken and “cries out for a fix.” In the past, private charitable agencies in the U.S. resettled refugees with mainly their own money.

Today the work is almost completely done by nine federal contractors called “Voluntary Agencies” or VOLAGS. The term is ironic because most of their funding comes from taxpayers. As Doetsch notes, “The VOLAGS receive between 57 percent to 99.5 percent of their funds from the federal government. Perhaps most troubling, top management typically receives salary and benefit packages in the mid-to-high six figures, ranging from $260,000 to more than $700,000 annually. [These] contractors have a vested interest in processing ever-larger numbers of applicants, since they make money on every refugee settled. ”

As the VOLAGS enrich themselves from resettlement, taxpayers are hit again by having to pay for public assistance that the refugees receive.

Read more at 

Permanent link to this article:

Apr 26

The Post Backs Fake Democracy

More Misinformation from the Media:

Although his audience was the European Parliament, French President Emmanuel Macron articulated truths on Tuesday that resonate for the entire globe. Nationalism and authoritarianism are on the march. Democracy as an ideal and in practice seems to be under siege. The United States, traditionally a beacon of freedom, has dimmed the light, at least for a time. Mr. Macron filled the gap with a thoughtful and bracing warning. . . .

He declared that Europe is being torn by the rise of “national selfishness and negativity” and a growing fascination with the illiberal.” In particular, he warned of the kind of anti-migrant authoritarianism on display recently in the Hungarian elections and fashionable among far-right parties in Europe.

Mr. Macron’s address was a needed summons. . . . Irresponsibly, President Trump cannot find a voice for such essential principles. In this vacuum, it would be reassuring to her German Chancellor Angela Merkel be more outspoken, as well as others who lead Democratic societies. – Leaders Worldwide are Falling for a “deadly Illusion” — Editorial Board, The Washington Post, 4/18/18. [Link]

Fact Checker: Democracy certainly was not under siege in Hungary where voters gave Prime Minister Victor Orban’s Fidesz party a two-thirds majority in that country’s parliament. Orban and Fidesz campaigned on the platform of keeping foreign migrants—particularly Muslims—from overrunning Hungary and erasing its national culture and identity.

The Post’s editorialists, like most mass immigration advocates, mislabel this sensible and moderate position as “far-right”—as if there is something extremist about people wanting to preserve their culture, heritage, and national identity. This is not “selfishness,” it is self-preservation. The demographic chaos proposed by migration advocates is the real extremist position.

The Post’s editorialists twist language even more with their Orwellian use of word “democracy.” The common usage is where the majority of people in a country freely exercise self-rule. Throughout much of the Western world this genuine democracy is truly what is under siege. Elitists with post-national agendas use government to stifle dissent against mass immigration and media to confuse and deceive the rank and file of people.

A perfect example is President Macron of France, a country lacking the constitutional protections of freedom that Americans enjoy. In France, people who speak out against the Muslim colonization of their country risk heavy fines or even prison—and being a prominent public official is no protection. Just recently Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s immigration restriction party, was charged with tweeting photos of Muslim atrocities. If convicted of this “crime” she will face up to three years in prison and a fine of 75,000 euros. The spectacle of Macron complaining about authoritarianism is truly laughable.

Germans under the regime of Angela Merkle are no better off. In Germany, with her encouragement, police harass critics of mass immigration. It seems that they are more dedicated to that task than protecting German citizens from migrant criminals.

The “democracy” endorsed by Macron, Merkle, and their ilk is pure sham. It seeks to maintain the outward forms of free representative government while ruling political and economic elites twist outcomes to their benefit. It should concern patriotic freedom-loving Americans that this is the “democracy” that the Post advocates for our country.

Permanent link to this article:

Apr 25

Koch Bros: Pass Amnesty or Lose Funds

A spokesman for the billionaire Koch brothers says they are “disappointed” that Congress has not passed an amnesty for the illegal aliens in the DACA category.  The spokesman, Tim Phillips, says that congressmen who do not vote for this amnesty could lose Koch campaign contributions in the upcoming midterm elections. He stated, “We’ve been disappointed so far this year, and it’s going to cause us to closely evaluate the involvement we may or may not have in individual races,

The Koch brothers are followers of the libertarian ideology, which supports virtually open borders so that businesses can enjoy a steady stream of cheap labor and keep wages low.


Permanent link to this article: