Feb 10

Kristol Says U.S. Workers Are ‘Lazy’

Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, stated during a public discussion that “[I]f things are so bad . . . with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?” He said we should welcome immigrants as workers because native-born workers have become “decadent, lazy [and] spoiled.” Kristol is a leader of the neo-conservative movement which commonly speaks of behalf of the business interests which want an endless stream of cheap foreign labor. Before making his remarks, Kristol stated that he hoped “this thing isn’t being videotaped or else shown anywhere.”

Read more at dailycaller.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/kristol-says-u-s-workers-are-lazy/

Feb 10

‘9th Circus’ Ignores Law to Fight Trump

The ultra-liberal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, known as the Ninth Circus for its frequent record of being overturned by the Supreme Court, had to disregard settled basic law to uphold a Seattle federal district court judge’s restraining order on President Trump’s executive order halting admissions from seven Muslim nations.  Commentator Scott McKay notes that the district court’s ruling contained virtually no law and was based on the judge’s opinion that Trump’s order and rhetoric weren’t suitably PC.

McKay notes three legal rules that are inarguable.  First, that the U.S. Constitution vests plenary power in the President where foreign policy, which includes immigration, is concerned.  Statute makes that power clear, giving the President authority to prevent the entry of any aliens or class of aliens he finds detrimental to the interests of the U.S.

Second, there is no constitutional right of a foreign national to enter the U.S.  Any constitutional rights of aliens commence only upon their arrival in America.

Third, previous presidents have issued similar bans of travel from or to various nations based on their assessment of risk.

McKay suggests that Congress consider dividing the 9th Circuit.  Whatever the outcome of this case, “legislating” liberal judges at war with President Trump and Middle America may be heading the nation toward a constitutional crisis.

Read more here:  https://spectator.org/trump-the-9th/

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/9th-circus-ignores-law-to-fight-trump/

Feb 09

Immigration Binging Isn’t Good for Us

More Misinformation from the Media:

One aspect of Donald Trump that has particularly bothered me has been his denunciations of immigrants. . . . I hope . . . [to] make people realize that we are all the descendants of immigrants. If you are a Native American, maybe your ancestors came 15,000 years ago; if you are English, perhaps 400 years ago. . . .

Yes, immigration brings challenges, including security risks that we’ve seen with terrorism. Yes, there are challenges, with immigrants sometimes displacing low-skilled workers in particular. But above all, immigrants bring hard work, diversity, and global connections. On balance, they strengthen this country. So we can’t have open borders, but neither should we vilify immigrants and scapegoat them. Because they are us. Right, Mr. Trump? – Speaking the Truth to Trump on Immigration, The Opinion Pages, The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof, 1/18/17.

Fact Check: President Trump has never denounced vetted legal immigrants. However, he did state that some illegal aliens are dangerous criminals. Why that obviously true statement should be controversial is hard to understand. In any case, immigration enthusiasts have seized it for their purposes. As they so commonly do, they conflate legal and illegal immigrants as if there is no difference between the two. Their notion at least suggests that they have little regard for American law and sovereignty—which further suggests that they have little regard for America, at least as most citizens understand the meaning.

The claim “we are all immigrants,” or descended from immigrants, is not strictly true. By general understanding, an immigrant is one who moves to a settled society. The people who pioneered and settled it, as well as their descendants, technically aren’t immigrant stock. Those who settled and laid the foundation of what is today our country were primarily the English settlers of 400 years ago and for some time thereafter. This “Englishness” is evident in our language and much of our culture.

But even if one accepts the idea that we are all immigrants and their descendants, this in no way implies what the immigration enthusiasts insinuate, namely that we are forever bound as “a nation of immigrants”  to welcome the entire world to our shores. An analogy will illustrate. Let’s say that Joe applies for a job at the Acme Corporation. He informs the interviewer that he must be hired simply because he is applying. “After all,” he says, “nearly everyone here was once a job applicant like me, so Acme is a ‘company of job applicants’—so you must employ me.”

One might imagine that the interviewer would reply, “Acme doesn’t exist to hire people; it hires people to serve its corporate purposes such as providing quality products and making a profit.” Similarly, America as a nation, doesn’t exist to admit immigrants. It exists first and foremost to serve its citizens and its national interests. A reasonable level of immigration might serve those purposes, but unending mass immigration doesn’t and never will.

Kristof implies immigration-derived diversity is an unmitigated benefit, one that always “strengthens this country.” But is diversity always good? That’s like asking if alcohol is good. It depends on the amount. Some scientists say that a glass of wine a day will promote good health. But does that prove that binge drinking whiskey will make you even healthier?

Since 1965, the U.S. has binged on immigration and diversity, and the consequences have not been good. One confirmation of this reality came from Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam who extensively studied the impact of diversity in cities across the country. He found that the more diversity there was, the less social and civic cohesion there was—a situation which doesn’t bode well for our national future. As a supporter of diversity, he was bothered by his findings.

Kristof deserves credit for acknowledging that there at least some downsides to immigration and that keeping our borders totally open is not a good idea. Nevertheless, he seems far closer to that position than any understanding of the need to moderate excessive immigration. He and journalists like him are much more inclined to “vilify and scapegoat” immigration restrictionists than paying heed to their legitimate concerns.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/immigration-binging-isnt-good-for-us/

Feb 08

Senators Propose Legal Immigration Cut

Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) have introduced legislation which would cut legal immigration in half. For the past two decades legal immigration has been at around a million a year, the highest sustained level in our history. Cotton said this reduction would benefit American workers. “We are taking action,” he affirmed, “to fix some of the shortcomings in our legal immigration system. Returning to our historically normal levels of legal immigration will help improve the quality of American jobs and wages.”

Read more at foxnews.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/senators-propose-legal-immigration-cut/

Feb 07

Trump’s Immigration Orders In Line With Law and Tradition


President Donald Trump’s executive order to impose a temporary moratorium on admitting foreigners from seven Mideast countries was met with noisy howls of protests from the news media, Democrat politicians, and left-wing activists who charge that the order is not only contrary to America’s founding principles but also illegal.   In reality, the howlers are distorting the truth in both cases.

The truth is that America’s founders never intended the country to be a “nation of immigrants,” and in fact the U.S. has a long history of immigration restriction based on national origin.

In his “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Thomas Jefferson warned about letting in too many foreign citizens.  He said,  “They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. ”

America was founded not by immigrants, but colonists who were mostly from the mother country of England.  They feared that foreign populations would distort the new country’s cultural heritage.

Alexander Hamilton wrote, “foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. …  The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

Other of America’s founders, including John Jay and George Washington, expressed similar sentiments.

As a result of these views, America often put strict controls on who could enter the country and who could become citizens.  America’s first naturalization law, The Naturalization Act of 1790, limited citizenship to “free white persons” of good character, and excluded American Indians, slaves, indentured servants, and free blacks.  It further specified that citizenship was not available to anyone “whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” American Indians were not allowed to be citizens until 1924.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited immigration of all Chinese labor.  It was renewed in 1892 and again in 1902.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 codified what was called the National Origins Quota System, which imposed a quota on immigrants based on their country of origin.  It revised the 1924 system to allow for national quotas at a rate of one-sixth of one percent of each nationality’s population in the United States in 1920. As a result, 85 percent of the 154,277 visas available annually were allotted to individuals of northern and western European lineage.

Those American immigration traditions of restriction were not abandoned until relatively recently in our history.  In 1965 liberal Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy sponsored and arranged for passage of legislation signed by President Lyndon Johnson that repealed the traditional national origins system and opened America’s border to immigration from Asia, Africa and India.

Despite the noisy protests and false reports in the news media, President Trump’s executive order is no violation of federal law, which states, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period 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.”

In 1982 the Supreme Court  ruled,  “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”

So when President Trump issues an order to protect Americans from alien terrorist attacks by temporarily suspending admission of a certain group of foreigners until the U.S. develops thorough vetting procedures to screen out potential terrorists, he is well within his authority granted by federal law, and his action is perfectly compatible with America’s long tradition of immigration restriction.






Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/trumps-immigration-orders-in-line-with-law-and-tradition/

Feb 07

Busch Ad Was ‘Fanciful’

During the Super Bowl the Anheuser-Busch beer company aired an advertisement which portrayed the company’s founder, Adolphus Busch, as one subjected to anti-immigrant prejudice. The obvious intent of the ad was to discredit opposition to immigration. In any case, a biographer of Adolphus Busch has described the content of the ad as fictitious and “fanciful.”

Read more at cis.org.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/busch-ad-was-fanciful/

Feb 06

Lawsuits against Trump Linked to Soros

Lawsuits against President Trump’s immigration orders are being pushed by organizations bankrolled by billionaire currency speculator George Soros. His leading aims are to weaken U.S. sovereignty while promoting mass immigration.

Read more at lifezette.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/lawsuits-against-trump-linked-to-soros/

Feb 05

l6 Quotes Show America Can Exclude Any Alien

President Trump’s executive order temporarily halting admissions of citizens of seven terrorist-hotbed Muslim nations not only stirred airhead Hollywood celebrities, radical street protestors and liberal editors to new heights of unhinged rage — it has led several liberal federal judges to ignore two centuries of American law and issue orders purporting to block the presidential directives.  Aliens living abroad have no rights under the U.S. Constitution, and a moment’s thought suggests the dire national security threat that would result if any one of over 800 federal judges could prevent the U.S. government from excluding aliens.  Author and commentator Daniel Horowitz explains the well-established, essential law now being ignored by leftist open border judges in his book “Stolen Sovereignty” and a recent article “These 16 Quotes Prove America Can Exclude or Deport Any Immigrant… for Any Reason.”

Readers can find his excellent article here:  https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/these-16-quotes-that-prove-america-can-exclude-or-deport-any-immigrant-for-any-reason

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/16-quotes-show-america-can-exclude-any-alien/

Feb 03

WaPo Misleads on Immigrant Welfare Use in Its War Against Trump

Immigration expert and columnist Jason Richwine in a post Wednesday, “Opposition Party Misleads on Immigrant Welfare Use,” exposes the flagrant bias in a “news” story published in the Washington Post.  Following are excerpts from that post, which is well worth reading in its entirety:

Media bias is well known, but occasionally a major outlet will publish something that is so one-sided that it surprises even me.  A Washington Post article yesterday by Abigail Hauslohner and Janell Ross meets that standard.  Ostensibly a straight news piece about the Trump administration’s draft order on immigrant welfare receipt, the article instead reads like a brief from the “opposition party” as Steve Bannon would say.

Here is the most objectionable part of the article: “The draft order provides no evidence to support the claim that immigrant households are more likely to use welfare benefits, and there is no consensus among experts about immigration’s impact on such benefits.

Had the reporters googled “immigrant welfare use,” this is what would have appeared at the top of their screens:

In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households.”

As they scanned further down the results page, they would not see any contrary study claiming that immigrant households use less welfare — because no such study exists.  Even if they were unable or unwilling to learn this information from the Internet, Hauslohner and Ross could have called someone who would give them those facts.  They did not.  Representatives from immigration-boosting organizations are quoted extensively in the article, but immigration skeptics get no say at all.

There’s more.  Trying to give the impression that welfare eligibility rules are already strict, the reporters describe at length how immigrants are barred if they are likely to be “public charges,” and how legal immigrants cannot receive welfare for five years.  A balanced article would note that the public charge rule is virtually never enforced, that Congress has significantly watered down the five-year rule, and that only about 15 percent of legal immigrant residents fall within the five-year window anyway.  But this is not a balanced article.

Read more here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444543/immigration-welfare-media-misleads-washington-post

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/wapo-misleads-on-immigrant-welfare-use-in-its-war-against-trump/

Feb 02

ICE and Border Patrol Unions Endorse Trump Executive Orders

The unions that represent ICE and Border Patrol agents endorsed President Trump’s recent initiatives on immigration. In a joint press release they stated:

As representatives of the nation’s Frontline immigration officers and agents responsible for enforcing our laws and protecting our borders, we fully support and appreciate President Trump’s swift and decisive action to keep the American people safe and allow law enforcement to do its job. We applaud the three executive orders he has issued to date, and are confident they will make America safer and more prosperous. Morale amongst our agents and officers has increased exponentially since the signing of the orders. The men and women of ICE and Border Patrol will work tirelessly to keep criminals, terrorists, and public safety threats out of this country, which remains the number one target in the world – and President Trump’s actions now empower us to fulfill this life saving mission, and it will indeed save thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

Source: bpunion.org.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/ice-and-border-patrol-unions-endorse-trump/