Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Homeland Security category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Homeland Security’ Category

After reading this article, it’s safe to say that Sen. Graham, (R-SC), is part of the problem. When it comes to immigration, Sen. Graham is a mainstream Democrat. Now he’s shooting his mouth off because the Trump administration just criticized him for being a total squish.

Appearing on Meet the Press, Sen. “Cotton said on NBC’s ‘Meet The Press’ he did not tank the deal proposed by Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, (R-SC), that would have codified the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in exchange for increased border security funding.”

Sen. Cotton added that “‘I don’t think anyone got to Donald Trump. Donald Trump studied the proposal that Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham put before him and realized it didn’t address any of our key priorities,’ he said. ‘It gave legal protections to the people in the DACA program and gave mass amnesty to the parents as well, the people who created the problem to begin with.'” Democrats have been the true problem children in this negotiation over the future of DACA and about 800,000 illegal immigrants brought to the country as children, Cotton said. There’s no real way to negotiate with the Democrats in good faith, he argued.”

Then Sen. Cotton spoke the truth:

“It’s hard for the president or for Senate Republicans to negotiate when the Democrats sitting across the table don’t get what they want,” he said. “They run out and they misrepresent what was a good faith effort to listen and to build trust, claim that some ridiculous deal was made and then claim that the president walked away from that deal, and the media buys it, hook, line, and sinker.”

Democrats want a DACA fix. They aren’t willing to secure the US-Mexican border, though.

If Democrats, including Lindsey Graham, don’t appropriate money to build the wall, Republicans should walk away from negotiations. Let it be known that building the wall, ending chain migration and the visa lottery must be included in any DACA deal. If Democrats say no, then beat them over the head with it from now until Election Day. Put it to the voters — again. Here’s Sen. Graham pushing his nowhere immigration legislation:

The White House issued this statement, which said “As long as Sen. Graham continues to support legislation that sides with people in this country illegally and unlawfully instead of our own American citizens, we’re going nowhere.” Then the statement said of Sen. Graham that “he’s been an outlier for years.”

The White House added that they weren’t that close to a deal, saying that “the deal not only would have legalized DACA recipients but their parents as well — about 8,000,000 people.” That’s why chain migration must be part of the immigration package.

Sen. Graham keeps talking about phase 1 and phase 2. Apparently, he hasn’t studied history. That’s the same deal that President Reagan signed onto, only to have Congress renege on the deal and not fund true border security. Unless the legislation has different phase-in dates for funding the wall, ending chain migration and the visa lottery, Republicans should reject the Democrats’ proposals. A promise to do something by a specific date shouldn’t be trusted because Sen. Schumer can’t be trusted.

Americans should view the negotiations between the Trump administration and the Democrats like a hostage negotiation. After all, Sen. Schumer is holding the U.S. military, the border patrol and the CHIP program hostage. By filibustering the CR Friday night, Sen. Schumer and his shills have held hostage the paychecks for our military, border patrol and first responders. With their actions, Democrats have earned the wrath of patriots from across the political spectrum. In addition to holding these paychecks hostage, the Democrats’ filibuster has left 9,000,000 vulnerable children more vulnerable by not voting to reauthorize CHIP for the next 6 years.

If you add the 2,000,000+ people serving in the military to the 9,000,000 vulnerable children, that’s quite the hostage taking.

If Democrats think this isn’t firing up the GOP base, they’re kidding themselves. If Democrats think that their filibuster isn’t turning off independents, they’re kidding themselves. Ronna Romney-McDaniel, the chair of the RNC, said essentially the same thing in this op-ed:

Last night, Senate Democrats shut down the United States government. They recklessly chose to jeopardize paychecks for our troops and border patrolmen to appease their far-left base. In triggering a totally unnecessary, easily avoidable shutdown, they put at stake the health insurance of nine million vulnerable children and a number of other critical programs, including veteran services and opioid treatment programs.

Part of the Democrats’ talking points is to say that Republicans control the White House, the House and the Senate. it’s true that they control the White House and the House of Representatives. They don’t control the Senate.

Republicans did their job and offered a solution to keep the government running, but they couldn’t stop the shutdown from happening on their own. Appropriations bills require 60 Senate votes to pass. With only 51 Republican senators, this means Democratic votes are necessary to secure funding.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his Democratic colleagues own this shutdown. The American people are very well aware that the Schumer shutdown rests squarely on his party’s shoulders. Their hypocrisy is on full display, as the same Democrats who once warned of the consequences of a shutdown eagerly embraced it this go around.

It’s worth noting that Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, which is useful in determining which bills get committee hearings. That simple majority is meaningless, though, when attempting to pass simple funding bills.

Democrats have used the filibuster to insist that President Trump sign a bill that includes amnesty for 700,000 illegal immigrants and millions of their relatives through chain migration. Fighting to protect illegal immigrants while not protecting vulnerable children is what despots do. The Democrats’ actions don’t rise to the level of what third-world dictators do but the Democrats’ actions are disgusting.

Many constituents of the Democrats rely on the government-funded programs that are being handicapped by the shutdown. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) put nearly 83,000 children’s health care at risk with her vote. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) did the same for more than 342,000 children, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) for nearly 45,000 children, and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) for 66,000 children. Their constituents are going to demand answers.

Good luck explaining that away.

Sen. Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor last night:

This paragraph especially jumped out at me:

None of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can point to a single thing in it that they oppose. That is why a bipartisan majority voted for it last night. It would have passed smoothly and been sent on for the president’s signature. Except that the Democratic Leader took the extraordinary step of filibustering this bipartisan bill and initiating his very own government shutdown.

If Democrats want to continue filibustering this funding bill, they have that right. Senate rules permit it. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s smart, though. Democrats shouldn’t think that this isn’t turning off independents. Democrats shouldn’t think that this isn’t firing up the GOP base.

The Democrats’ foolish decision is doing both those things. Hell hath no fury like a bunch of voters who’ve gotten ignored by elitist Democrats who protect lawbreakers but don’t protect our troops and our most vulnerable.

The biggest problem that the Democrats have is that they can’t tell the truth about the Graham-Durbin disgrace. White House Chief of Staff John Kelly explained that the Graham-Durbin legislation was bipartisan. That’s the only criteria President Trump established that the legislation met, according to Kelly, who said “According to Kelly, while the bill was bipartisan in the sense it was crafted by lawmakers of both parties in the Senate, members of the House and Republican Sens. David Perdue of Georgia, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina should have been included in the discussions. ‘It did not include all of the senators that had been involved in the discussions about DACA, and certainly did not involve the House,’ he said. ‘And the president has said from the beginning, this has got to be bipartisan, and unless it involves the House as well as the Senate, it’s going to go down as a bill that is not going to pass into law.'”

Sen. Graham knew that including Sen. Cotton in the negotiations would produce a different outcome, either in the form of Sen. Cotton rejecting Sen. Graham’s and Sen. Durbin’s proposal or in the form of Sen. Durbin rejecting Sen. Cotton’s demands. Knowing this, Sen. Graham knew that he had to exclude any immigration hawks.

Kelly laid things out perfectly in this article:

The President that I work for wants 700,000 or so DACA recipients, the vast majority of whom are now adults, to have a way to stay in the United States legally. He wants that. That’s a given. But what we cannot have is a unprotected, unsecured southwest border that five, six, seven years from now, we have another group of 600 or 700,000 DACA people.

The Graham-Durbin bill contains $1,500,000,000 of funding for the wall, whereas President Trump requested $21,600,000,000 for funding the wall. The Graham-Durbin travesty fell 90+ percent short of the amount President Trump requested. No wonder President Trump was upset. It isn’t surprising that President Trump has lost all trust in Sen. Durbin.

The deal would have been ‘horrible’ for security, Trump said, according to the wire service, and would not have allowed enough funding for construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall. Trump also said the Durbin-Graham proposal would have been weak in terms of curbing visas for immigrants’ extended family members and did not end a lottery program, both things he wanted to see in an immigration deal.

After watching this video, I understand why President Trump wouldn’t trust Sen. Durbin:

Less than 30 seconds into the press conference, Sen. Durbin said that Republicans hadn’t put together a proposal dealing with DACA. That’s a lie. In the House, Bob Goodlatte, Martha McSally, Michael McCaul and Raul Labrador introduced a bill that meets all 4 of President Trump’s criteria. When they submitted the bill, they issued this statement.

I’d expect that Sen. Durbin wouldn’t agree with much in the bill. That’s different, though, than saying a Republican proposal doesn’t exist. Rep. McSally said this about the bill:

Our unsecure border and broken immigration system threaten our country’s safety and prosperity; no one knows this better than Arizona. As if the most recent terrorist attacks don’t stand as reason enough, sophisticated drug cartels, human traffickers, and an opioid crisis all point to the need for action. Now is the time.

Our legislation finally strengthens America’s borders. It moves us towards a merit-based immigration system. It includes funds for necessary infrastructure, interior law enforcement, a biometric exit-entry system, and an e-verify system for employers so that our immigration laws are enforced. It cracks down on sanctuary cities and focuses on public safety of our citizens like Kate Steinle who was killed by a man deported 5 times. And it also puts more boots on the border and supports our Border Patrol Agents and CBP officers on the frontlines. America is the most generous and welcoming nation in the world, and that will continue. But we won’t be taken advantage of any longer. This bill delivers on what the American people want and what our President has requested, and I urge my colleagues to join us and support it.

Democrats won’t support this bill because they aren’t serious about enforcing the Tex-Mex border.

What’s needed to pass this bill are about 5-6 more Republicans in the Senate and a significant Republican majority in the House.

Thank God that Lindsey Graham isn’t doing the negotiating on DACA for the Republicans. Thank God that President Trump is the negotiator, instead. First, according to Ed Henry, “the White House is planning on taking a hard line” on DACA negotiations. Henry also reported that ICE is stepping up enforcement activities at businesses like 7-11s in an attempt to put greater pressure on Democrats to negotiate a better deal for the White House. But I digress. Back to Sen. Graham.

Sen. Graham is stuck in a Gang of Eight rut. Tuesday, Sen. Graham implored President Trump to “close this deal.” Next, Sen. Graham explains his plan, saying “So here’s what I would suggest to you. Phase one: To expect my friends on the other side to go comprehensive for us, and DACA for them, is not going to happen. I’m telling my friends on the other side, DACA and nothing else is not going to happen. The sweet spot is DACA-plus, more than the DACA kids. And making down payments on border security. Moving slowly but surely towards a merit-based immigration system, to be followed by Phase Two.”

With all due respect to Sen. Graham, in this instance, slow and steady lets too many illegal immigrants into the U.S. It doesn’t win a race. With this administration putting pressure on Democrats and with the Democrats’ special interests freaking out, don’t be surprised if President Trump’s pressure isn’t a game-changer.

Last week, Rep. Martha McSally, (R-AZ), made things exceptionally clear that the Democrats’ clean DACA bill was essentially dead and buried:

This wasn’t communicated in gentle speak. Rep. McSally laid down the law on immigration. Don’t be surprised if McSally’s star doesn’t rise during the DACA negotiations. Footnote: If that happens, the likelihood that she replaces Jeff Flake as Arizona’s junior senator would increase significantly.

The Democrats are facing tons of pressure from immigration special interest groups, though they’ve been pressuring Democrats to hold to a hard line on DACA. Now that ICE is stepping up raids, don’t be surprised if these special interest organizations don’t experience a change of heart.

Appearing on Fox News’ Outnumbered, David Asman started off the show by saying that he thinks Democrats don’t want a DACA deal because they don’t want to give President Trump a political victory. That’s an opinion I hold because the Democrats’ Resistance Movement has been their strategy since President Trump’s inauguration. The proof is plentiful that Democrats have deployed obstructionism since President Trump’s inauguration. They’ve used every Senate rule to slow the confirmations of President Trump’s Cabinet secretaries.

Further, Democrats unanimously voted against the Trump/GOP tax cuts even though many so-called moderates said there were parts of the tax cuts that they really liked. Despite liking major parts of the Trump/GOP tax cuts, every Democrat in the House and Senate voted against helping their constituents in the hopes of retaking the House of Representatives.

Multiple Senate Democrats oppose the building of Trump’s wall, saying that it doesn’t work. There’s tons of proof that it does. It’s in ICE’s official reports. It’s in FBI reports, too. The statistics speak for themselves. It isn’t that the Wall doesn’t work. It’s that the special interests that fund the Democrats’ campaigns insist that Democrats not vote for anything that would improve border security.

Here’s the dirty truth: Democrats would much rather do what their special interest allies instruct them to do rather than make life better for DACA recipients. Here’s another dirty little truth: Democrats don’t want a merit-based immigration system. Asman explains why we need to implement a merit-based immigration system immediately in this video:

Nothing that Asman said in describing his sister-in-law interests the Democrats. Why would they want self-sufficient immigrants with a history of creating small businesses to move to the United State? Democrats have shown that they prefer people who can’t stand on their own or that need government programs. If you don’t think that’s the truth, explain why Democrats insist on increasing the number of refugees entering from terrorist-infested nations.

Finally, Democrats want to create the storyline that Republicans shut down the government. Democrats are playing with fire this time. They’re saying no to increasing military spending, something that won’t play well this November. Think about this: Democrats don’t want to secure the Tex-Mex border. Democrats don’t want to rebuild the military, either. Democrats oppose stopping drug cartel-related crime, too.

Perhaps Democrats would like to explain something that they’re for that the American people want. And when I say that they should explain what they’re for, I’m talking about actually voting for it, not just saying that they’re for it. Words don’t mean much without actions.

Ladies and gentlemen, Tina Smith gave us proof that she’s a typical Metrocrat when she was interviewed by Almanac’s Eric Eskola and Cathy Wurzer. During the interview, Cathy Wurzer asked Smith if she thought the Senate was close to a DACA deal. Sen. Smith replied that she thought there was a good chance of senators coming together on a deal on DACA. Then Eskola essentially asked why Democrats weren’t willing to trade funding for President Trump’s wall for protection of DACA-protected illegals.

That’s when Sen. Smith said “Well, you know the wall is just a dumb idea. To try to pay for a big wall is just — most people don’t think it’s a good idea. At the same time, we have to have really strong border security and so I hope that a compromise can be reached that makes sense so that we can have strong border security.” Eskola jumped in, saying “That’s a compromise — wall- DACA”. Sen. Smith then countered, saying “I don’t think a wall is — I think a wall is — what? $18,000,000,000? I think we need to focus on border security and not the idea of tons and tons of cement, which doesn’t really work.”

There’s reason to question Sen. Smith’s commitment to border security. She recently participated in a DACA rally that featured her and Keith Ellison.

At the rally, Smith told the crowd of about 200 people “Minnesota Dreamers are American in every way except their immigration status. They work hard to improve our communities and to make our state better, not just for themselves and their families but for all of us. So the notion that we would turn our backs on Dreamers now … it’s just disgraceful.”

In other words, Sen. Smith thinks that there’s no problem admitting lots of illegal immigrants into Minnesota. On Almanac, Smith talked repeatedly about needing to secure the border. At this rally, Smith talked about how DREAMers were “American in every way except their immigration status.”

Which is it, Sen. Smith? If DREAMers are “American in every way except their immigration status”, why do we need tight security at the border? If we need tight security on the border, how can DREAMers be “American in every way except their immigration status”? It’s apparent that Sen. Smith is already adept at talking out of both sides of her mouth.

Smith’s interview is the first segment of Friday night’s show:

It’s understatement to say that it didn’t help improve her trustworthy rating.

Technorati: , , , ,

These days, Democrats are using the term border security as their new euphemism for comprehensive immigration reform. To Democrats, border security means not building the wall or ending chain migration. Democrats insist that the wall is a poison pill, that linking DACA to building the wall is a deal-breaker.

I’m upset with Republicans for not fighting that by questioning Democrats why they think that building a border wall is a poison pill. For that matter, I’d love seeing Chairman Goodlatte invite someone from the Israeli Defense Forces, aka the IDF, or Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee on whether their wall has protected Israel from terrorist attacks.

The Israelis are the gold standard at keeping their people safe. They’re surrounded by water and terrorists. The terrorists have a virtual unlimited supply of short- and medium-range rockets. They also have the determination to kill Israelis. During the “Second Intifada”, which started in 2000, Israelis built the border wall. From 2000 to 2003, there were 73 terrorist attacks. After the wall was built, from 2003 through 2006, terrorist attacks dropped to 12.

Let’s hear Democrats insist that a border wall doesn’t work or that it’s a poison pill after hearing that type of testimony. The Democrats insist that the wall is a poison pill because special interest organizations that fund their campaigns want to keep the stream of illegal aliens flowing. Period. That’s why it’s imperative Republicans hold onto the U.S. House. Everyone knows that there’s enough Senate Republicans who will cave on the wall. We need to keep our majority in the House to shut down any bill that doesn’t include funding for President Trump’s wall.

Let’s be exceptionally clear about this. Conservative hardliners should stop debate of any immigration bill that doesn’t end chain migration, doesn’t end the visa lottery and doesn’t fund the building of President Trump’s wall. That’s our poison pill because, without all of those things, the border isn’t secure.

No amount of happy talk will make it so. Finally, Republicans should insist that Democrats eliminate any euphemisms that make it sound like they’re serious about securing the border when they aren’t serious about securing the border. If Chuck Schumer wants to throw a hissy fit on the Senate floor after getting called out on this, that’s fine. Let him look like a jackass. After Sen. Schumer finishes his diatribe, the Republicans should then reiterate how the border wall between Israel and the West Bank has kept Israel safe for a decade.

I just read Roger Simon’s article about the Steinle miscarriage of justice verdict. Saying that it’s pi$$ed me off is understatement. Simon is right in saying “the real villains in the Kate Steinle story are the San Francisco politicians who made the rules that prevented ICE from removing the already five-time deported criminal Zarate from the country. These SF pols already had Kate’s murder forever on their consciences, what they have of them anyway. Now they will also have to deal with the growing disgust of the American public and an administration that loathes these politicians, backed up by a Supreme Court that will ultimately be on the side of that administration for most actions it might take.”

Let’s be perfectly clear about this. Let’s tell our politicians to insist that they fund the building of the wall. Let’s tell them that people that stand in the way of the building of that wall are road kill. Let’s tell these politicians that letting another person die at the hands of an illegal alien or a member of MS-13 isn’t acceptable. We won’t put up with that.

Simon made a series of predictions, starting with “Attorney General Sessions, with the firm backing of the president, will redouble his efforts to do away with sanctuary cities both financially and legally.  It may take some time, but the days of these sanctuaries are over.”

This morning, I said that the Steinle family will get a little justice when they win their wrongful death lawsuit against SF politicians. After 10s of millions of dollars are stripped from their budget, they’ll feel even greater financial pain.

The border wall will be built, at least a good part of it, and Trump will find it far easier to get his way with border security. The Dreamers will remain, but the public will back Trump on further security measures that will be enacted. Those measures will be stronger than hitherto predicted.

Swing-state or red-state Democrats that vote against the wall will suddenly face an uphill fight for re-election.

Fewer people will “leave their hearts in San Francisco.” Many Californians have already left the state, but some who have been on the fence about decamping will get off that fence and finally leave.

It’s time to send the message that these politicians are insane and we won’t tolerate it anymore.

Finally, let’s use the Steinle miscarriage of justice to prove that Democrats care more about playing identity politics than keeping people safe.

It seems like everything that Democrats criticize Republicans about is because the Republicans’ actions are unconstitutional. At least, that’s the Democrats’ dishonest accusation. Janet Napolitano’s op-ed is similarly dishonest. The op-ed starts innocently enough. The second paragraph states “Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, the Obama Administration urged young undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children to voluntarily undergo rigorous background and security checks in exchange for the renewable option to legally live, work, and study in the country they know as home.”

It doesn’t take long, though, to turn ugly. The fourth paragraph says “Now the future of DACA is in jeopardy. The Trump administration’s plan to end the program is illegal, unconstitutional, and anathema to our national ethos. It also defies common sense. I believed in the importance of DACA five years ago, and I will fight for it now.”

First off, President Trump’s plan is to have Congress pass legislation that protects recipients of DACA. Not only isn’t that unconstitutional, it’s the essence of following the Constitution. Democrats don’t like that President Trump isn’t the negotiating pushover they’d prefer. He’s actually insisting that Democrats fund the building of the wall in exchange for making DACA protections permanent.

This is why the University of California Board of Regents and I have filed suit in federal court against the Department of Homeland Security. On behalf of the university and our DACA students, we have asked the court to overturn the rescission of this program I helped create.

There’s little doubt that Napolitano will win when the 9th Circuit hears the case. There’s less doubt that she’ll lose when it gets to the Supreme Court. This paragraph is utterly laughable:

No court has found DACA to be invalid, and indeed, the Department of Justice reaffirmed its validity in 2014.

Having Loretta Lynch or Eric Holder certify anything is laughable beyond belief. They both helped politicize pretty much everything the DOJ got their hands on. This paragraph is utterly laughable:

In the interim, and until Congress passes comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship, we must fight this shortsighted and unlawful move. These young people are, in every sense but one, as American as those whose relatives arrived in this country on the Mayflower.

That’s like saying that arsonists are law-abiding citizens except one. That difference is the major determining factor. That difference is that these illegal immigrants broke the laws of this nation. There isn’t any dispute that Congress writes the immigration laws of this land:

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch Section 8 – Powers of Congress

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are upset that President Trump has them over a proverbial barrel as they start negotiations on DACA legislation. They’re upset because they’ll lose politically if they agree to President Trump’s demands. If they don’t agree to his demands, they’ll lose politically, too. The biggest of President Trump’s demands is funding to build his border wall.

When Schumer and Pelosi got the news that this was part of President Trump’s demands, they went ballistic, saying “We told the President at our meeting that we were open to reasonable border security measures alongside the DREAM Act, but this list goes so far beyond what is reasonable. This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise.” The definition of reasonable is “agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical.” Just because the Democrats’ pro-amnesty special interests don’t think building the border wall is reasonable doesn’t mean it isn’t reasonable. Building the wall is exercising sound judgment. Not only that, the American people agree with most of President Trump’s list of demands, often by overwhelming margins. If Pelosi and Schumer want to argue that more than two-thirds of the American people aren’t reasonable, that’s their choice.

Ms. Pelosi’s hinting publicly that Democrats might be willing to shut down the government if they don’t get what they want:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Monday wouldn’t rule out withholding support for end-of-the-year budget bills, and risk a government shutdown, if President Trump and the Republicans don’t agree to protections for immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. “We have to do it before Christmas, that’s just the way it is,” she said Monday in an interview with The Washington Post.

That’s a major political loser for Democrats on multiple platforms. First, this will alienate blue collar America districts. If the Democrats don’t flip those districts and/or states, they can’t win majorities in either the House or Senate. In fact, it will likely cause them to lose seats in both the House and Senate if Pelosi shuts down the government. Even if they don’t shut the government down, this strategy is foolish. It isn’t difficult seeing every vulnerable Democrat in the House get tied to Pelosi’s statement. Do they really think that they can hide from Pelosi’s statements?

There’s another part of the Democrats’ threats that’s a political loser. By threatening shutting down the government over building the wall, Democrats are essentially admitting that they’re the open borders political party. They can issue statement after statement that they’re for reasonable border security measures. It won’t matter because people think of the wall as true border security. This video should be part of the Trump administration’s campaign to build the wall:

I’d love seeing Schumer and Pelosi fight against that video. It isn’t that they’d win. It’s that it’d be fun watching them attempt to tell people that the wall hasn’t had a positive public safety/national security impact. The statistics speak for themselves. If Democrats want to fight that, that’s their decision.

It just isn’t a reasonable decision.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,