Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Immigration category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

This column, which was written by a legal immigrant, makes the point that Democrats aren’t listening to the people on immigration. I’d totally agree, though I’d argue that they aren’t listening on other subjects, either.

This highlights just how crazy Democrats are:

Listening to Democratic Party leaders and their media supporters talk about immigration gives me massive cognitive dissonance. Their argument has a strange up-is-down, black-is-white quality to it:

Uncontrolled illegal immigration is no problem! Border protection is racist and offensive! Arresting and deporting criminal aliens, even those that are violent, is immoral! Enforcing our immigration laws is racist!

And now, of course, it has amped up — several Democratic leaders are openly talking about abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE.

Democrats used to listen to people. They don’t anymore. They have their ideological checklist, which is what they’re interested in accomplishing. Period.

They don’t represent people. They represent causes. That’s why they’re disconnected from blue collar workers. Whether we’re talking about miners, construction workers or heavy equipment operators, the Democrats lost that vote in 2016.

Similarly, Democrats haven’t listened to the people on immigration. They’ve listened to NCLR, aka La Raza, and other immigration hardliners. If Democrats had been sensible, they could’ve had a deal months ago on DACA recipients in exchange for funding the wall. When that didn’t happen, it said that Democrats didn’t care about DACA recipients, that they cared mostly about open borders.

Does this look like a bunch of reasonable-minded activists protesting Ms. Pelosi?

This won’t end well with Democrats. Immigration, if handled properly, can be a major winning issue for the GOP in 2018 and beyond. Let’s remember how President Trump is playing with Hispanics now that their unemployment rate is the lowest in history. Add in how reasonable President Trump looks in offering protection for DACA recipients in exchange for the wall.

After President Trump tweeted that he’s willing to shut down the government over funding for his border wall, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that he’s optimistic they “can avoid a government shutdown.” A senior Republican aide said “We’ve got the whole month of August dedicated to appropriations. This notion that we’re going to shut down the government — everyone needs to dial down the panic button a couple notches.”

That leads me to this question: will Republicans finish the major funding bills on time, then force Democrats to either vote for funding the wall or shutting the government down? The truth is that Republicans might paint the Democrats into a corner by passing the vast majority of appropriations bills on time. The NDAA is heading to President Trump’s desk, which funds the military. Since Congress is passing individual appropriations bills rather than a CR that funds the entire government, the MSM and the Democrats (pardon the repetition) will find it virtually impossible to succeed in accusing Republicans of shutting down government.

Further, the part of the government that is actually shut down is the Department of Homeland Security. Do Democrats really want to tell swing-district voters that they don’t want to build the wall? That might work in some of the most liberal districts but it can’t help them in the Rust Belt, the Midwest or Great Lakes states where they’re fighting to recapture governorships and/or hold onto precarious Senate seats. Further, if Democrats vote against funding the wall, won’t that essentially kill their opportunity to flip the Arizona and Nevada Senate seats?

“We’ll finish up the set of appropriations measures we’ve been considering for several days and take four more big steps toward our goal of completing a regular appropriations process and funding the government in a timely and orderly manner,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.

President Obama loved getting Republicans into an all-or-nothing position because he had the biggest megaphone. Republicans now have that super-sized megaphone. It’s worth noting that President Trump is on the right side of the border wall issue. Whether Republicans realize it or not, most Rust Belt/Corn Belt states prefer keeping the gangs, drug cartels and human traffickers out of their states.

If Democrats want to bet that they’re on the right side of that issue, let ’em try. Ultimately, I’m betting that there’s more people who want to stop MS-13 and keep the economy running strong than there are people who prefer open borders, rampant crime and a return to the Obama economy.

If Republicans can campaign on getting their appropriations done on time, that will tell voters that, despite a bumpy start, Republicans are getting the nation’s work done on time. That’s a net positive for both the House and Senate. Couple that with the Senate confirming another Supreme Court justice and the House getting started on Tax Cuts 2.0 and you’ve got a pretty nice list of accomplishments to run on.

If funding the wall is the only thing left on the agenda, that’d put Democrats in a sticky position. That’s a position red state Democrat senators don’t want to find themselves in.

The Democrats have a major problem brewing that really can’t be fixed. Thanks to their divisions, Democrats are fighting over immigration. A significant percentage of Democrats openly want open borders. Another significant percentage are fine with open borders but don’t want to talk about it during the campaign. There’s a tiny fraction of Democrats that are actually sane who want the borders enforced. Doug Schoen is a patriotic member of that tiny fraction. In this op-ed, Schoen makes the argument that advocating for open borders will eliminate opportunities for Democrats.

Specifically, he wrote “Not only is Ellison’s statement in itself completely detached from reality, but it seems to suggest that if we cannot have wide open borders, then we must not have free trade at all. These remarks come just weeks after Ellison wore a T-shirt which read ‘yo no creo en fronteras,’ which in English translates into ‘I do not believe in borders.'”

What’s stunning about that t-shirt is that it gives context to his run for Minnesota’s state Attorney General’s office. It’s clear that Ellison will fight law enforcement (through the courts) whose responsibility it is to protect us from drug cartels, gangs like MS-13 and sex and human traffickers. It’s apparent that his only is to pad DFL voter lists. If he has to ignore the law, he’s shown that he’s willing to do that without hesitation.

Further, Ellison has a history of defending cop-killers in the court of public opinion. He did that with convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, and with Kathleen Soliah. But I digress.

Concerningly, Ellison’s brash statement on immigration is not far out of line with the Democratic Party as a whole. In fact, a Harvard Harris poll from June states that a striking 36 percent of Democrats support “basically open borders”—an inflammatory policy dangerously out of line with mainstream thinking.

Then there’s this:

With the midterms slowly approaching, regaining the support of Independents and moderate Republicans will be key for Democrats in their fight to take back the House. However, light of contentious issues such as immigration where the party has moved further left than ever before, this will be an increasingly difficult demographic for Democrats to appeal to in November. According to a July Gallup poll, immigration is one of the most important issues for Americans heading into the midterm elections, with 22 percent of respondents saying it was the nation’s most important problem.

The Democrats lead in the generic ballot polling but I don’t think it’s a sturdy lead. That’s because I think the Republicans’ closing arguments will devastate Democrats this fall.

Part of the Republicans’ closing arguments should be this insane blathering from Nancy Pelosi:

Saying that Democrats are better at border security is stupid beyond belief. Republicans should also use this interview of Thomas Homan, the retired acting director of ICE, by Harris Faulkner:

When Homan said that the judge ordered the government to stop doing DNA testing because the ACLU filed a lawsuit on the issue, my heart broke. Homan said that “5%-7% of the kids” weren’t a match with the people who claimed to be their parents. Homan then hinted that this judge might’ve just given these kids to sex traffickers.

If Nancy Pelosi wants to have that fight, Republicans should welcome that fight. Thoughtful people don’t release kids to sex traffickers.

This morning, former State Department spinmeister Marie Harf got into a disagreement with David Webb while they appeared on FNC’s Outnumbered. Harf insisted that the moderates that are running for office in the Midwest are more moderate and that Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be speaker if Democrats retake the House this November.

Webb replied that Pelosi raises tons of money for candidates so she’ll essentially own those candidates. Next, he replied that the last time they had the House majority, the talk was that they’d recruited tons of moderates that fit their districts well. That’s true at the start but it didn’t take long before Pelosi had them voting like hardline lefties.

The setting for this argument was about the Democrats’ open borders policies. Harf insisted that those new Democrats weren’t talking about open borders or abolishing ICE. Tough. The hardline left isn’t interested in having a debate on this. That matters because they’re the ones controlling the Democratic Party right now. That’s the direction the Democratic Party is heading whether the so-called moderates like it or not.

The truth is that lots of their ‘leaders’ (they’re the people leading the Democratic Party into the grave) think that’s where they should go:

Again Gillibrand, in addition to others like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, didn’t simply watch the protest unfold outside of their offices. They joined in and took selfies with those demanding open borders for all. “We need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom, starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our morality and that works,” Warren said a day later at another rally.

Going even farther left, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison declared during a recent interview that American borders are an “injustice” and argued people should be able to move freely. This week, dozens of House Democrats further solidified their open-border, lawless immigration philosophy by voting against a measure supporting thousands of men and women who work for ICE.

This is part of the resolution that the vast majority of Democrats voted against:

Supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Whereas calls to abolish ICE are an insult to these heroic law enforcement officers who make sacrifices every day to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and protect our safety and security; abolishing ICE would allow dangerous criminal aliens, including violent and ruthless members of the MS-13 gang, to remain in American communities.

It isn’t a stretch to say that Democrats hate enforcing the law, especially immigration laws. That’s what makes them such a despicable bunch. If you can’t vote for the men and women who protect us from drug cartels, sex traffickers and lethal gangs, then you’re morally bankrupt.

Read John Hinderaker’s post on what matters to voters and you’ll quickly realize that they care passionately about illegal immigration, tightening borders and stopping international crime. That’s true whether it’s stopping MS-13, human traffickers, sex trafficking or drug cartels. What sane person wants those things infesting their cities?

If Democrats think that they can win with an open borders/Abolish ICE agenda, then they’re kidding themselves.

Yesterday, I wrote this post based on a tweet posted by MaryAnn Mendoza. The tweet was about an ICE statement about a subhuman creature named Ramon Raudel Campos Murillo. Murillo is described as “a native of Mexico, who sometimes also goes by Raudel or the alias ‘Chilango.'” Later in the ICE statement, it says “Murillo ‘is charged with transporting a minor across state lines for prostitution in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.'”

The disgusting thing about this ICE memo is that it was first published in 2011. The next most disgusting thing is that “Campos Murillo managed the operation of an interstate prostitution ring that trafficked multiple women and a known minor across state lines to engage in commercial sex acts.”

Why didn’t the Obama administration put a higher priority on capturing this thug and shutting down this operation? Further, why didn’t the Obama administration and Democrats put a higher priority on beefing up ICE? Based on the range of activities that gangs like this and MS-13 were involved in, I can’t picture legislation funding this not flying through Congress.

Democrats don’t want to admit that there’s more to illegal immigration than adding agricultural workers. They don’t want to admit that a significant portion of ICE’s responsibilities focus on drug interdiction or human and sex trafficking.

After losing her son, Mrs. Mendoza has become a tireless activist:

Why haven’t Democrats rallied to her cause? Her son was a police officer who was killed by an illegal alien who was driving drunk. Why haven’t Democrats rallied to the sides of Sabine Durden, Agnes Gibboney and other Angel Moms and Angel families?

Here’s the dirty little secret: Democrats don’t want to talk about these things because that would force them to solve these problems. If America knew about this, they’d pressure Democrats to substantively participate in crafting legislation that’d fix this problem. That would include building Trump’s wall. That’d include eliminating foolish talk about abolishing ICE.

The blood of these Angel Moms’ kids are on the Democrats’ hands. First, the Democrats have steadfastly refused to fund building Trump’s wall because they don’t want to give him a political victory. Seriously? Whatever happened to doing what’s right? Whatever happened to just being an American first, a partisan after that? Next, Democrat activists consistently tell us that we shouldn’t disparage illegal aliens. I wholeheartedly disagree. When sex traffickers, drug cartels and human traffickers make hundreds of millions of dollars off their trades, why shouldn’t we call it what it is? It’s called speaking the truth.

Hooray for resilient people like Angel Moms. If Democrats had a heart, they’d listen to these women and turn from their wicked ways.

For those that ignorantly think that border/immigration enforcement only happens along the southwest US/Mexico border, it’s time to wake up. If you’re one of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s supporters who think it’s time to abolish ICE, it’s time to start thinking. If you’re a Democrat senator living in a red state or a Democrat living in a swing district who has opposed building President Trump’s wall, it’s time for you to start thinking about putting America first instead of putting Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi first.

This article from the Illegal Alien Crime Report website highlights the press release from ICE seeking information about “Ramon Raudel Campos Murillo, a native of Mexico, who sometimes also goes by Raudel or the alias ‘Chilango.'” Murillo “is charged with transporting a minor across state lines for prostitution in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.”

Here’s what’s known about Murillo:

Court documents relevant to the fugitive’s known co-conspirators and associates state that for approximately three years between 2009 and 2012, Campos Murillo managed the operation of an interstate prostitution ring that trafficked multiple women and a known minor across state lines to engage in commercial sex acts. Many of these women were foreign nationals, brought in from all along the eastern seaboard from New York to Virginia. Once they had arrived at the Greyhound bus station in Washington, D.C., they were transported to an apartment in Riverdale, Maryland maintained by the enterprise as a brothel. This illicit operation prostituted more than 100 different women, and operated in multiple locations to include Manassas, Woodbridge, Falls Church, Fairfax, Alexandria, Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Newport News, Baltimore and Delaware. Campos Murillo’s operation typically charged clients $30.00 for 15 minutes of sexual intercourse with the trafficked women, garnering almost half a million dollars in illicit proceeds.

ICE is built to track these animals down and remove them from the US. Along comes a wet-behind-the-ears 28-year-old socialist know-it-all who hasn’t thought things through and she starts yapping about the supposed ‘need’ for abolishing ICE.

It didn’t take long for all of the Democrats’ top tier presidential candidates to start repeating her. Last week, Mark Pocan submitted a bill with the intent of abolishing ICE. That led to Martha McSally and others to put a resolution together to support ICE. Here’s Harris Faulkner interviewing Rep. McSally:

When the vote was taken, 34 Democrats voted not to support ICE. Another 133 Democrats voted present, which is the same as not supporting ICE. Others, like Rep. Tim Walz and Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, skipped the vote entirely.

The truth is that Democrats have tried thwarting the Republicans’ attempts to fix our immigration system. These Democrats have thwarted the Republicans’ efforts because they put putting the party back in power ahead of putting America first. Why would a political party want to abolish an agency that arrests sex traffickers like Ramon Raudel Campos Murillo?

This will sound radical but it’s actually well thought out. A large percentage of Democrats, specifically the ones that want to thwart enforcing immigration laws, aren’t patriots. They’re un-American through and through. A vote for Democrats this November is a vote to keep the immigration status quo intact.

Saying that Keith Ellison’s brain isn’t wired like real people is understatement. This article quotes Keith Ellison saying some of the wackiest things about borders imaginable.

In an interview with progressive activist Rabbi Michael Lerner, Ellison said “prosperity is based on the want that is experienced in other parts of the world” and complained that “people, regular people, cannot go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages. We just have to say that the 12 million undocumented people in the United States are here because somebody wants them to be. But they want them here to do the work, but they don’t want them to get any rights. They don’t want to pay them fairly. They don’t want them to be able to bargain collectively. They don’t want them to be able to get occupational safety and standards. And that is what’s really going on.”

This isn’t some nobody saying this. This is the Deputy Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He’s also running to become the next State Attorney General for Minnesota. The frightening thing is that his views on open borders aren’t out-of-step with large swaths of the Democratic Party. Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted on a resolution “supporting the officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” 133 Democrats, including Keith Ellison, voted against the resolution by voting present. What a bunch of cowards. If these Democrats think that we shouldn’t enforce our borders, and they don’t, they should just be honest.

“And these trade agreements, you know, they allow capital to travel other borders, and all capital is, is people who happen to own something we call a corporation, which is a legal arrangement which gives them special rights. And labor, which is a regular person, cannot travel back and forth across the border,” he continued. “And so corporations, certain people who get certain rights, can go back and forth across the border seeking out the lowest wages, but people, regular people, cannot go back and forth across the border seeking out the highest wages. So what it creates is an imbalance. It creates an injustice.”

The key that Ellison missed is that there’s a procedure that corporations follow to conform with the laws of the different nations. If the corporations got caught not following the rules, they’d get fined. Similarly, illegal aliens are subject to fines or deportations when they attempt to enter the U.S. without obeying the rules.

This is likely a foreign concept to Ellison but imposing penalties of fines, prison time or deportation is standard procedure for nations. This picture is worth … something:

Bernie claims that his socialist ideas are now mainstream. That’s BS, though they’ve certainly gained in popularity within the Democratic Party. Open borders have gained in popularity, too, within the Democratic Party but that doesn’t mean that they’re mainstream with voters.

Most, if not all, frequent LFR readers have figured it out that the plan behind the Democrats’ Abolish ICE movement is their latest semi-silent push for open borders. Unfortunately for Democrats, the Abolish ICE movement is already getting challenged. It’s likely going to fail, too. Part of the reason for that is because Americans want to keep drug cartels, gangs like MS-13 and human traffickers out of the US. Abolishing ICE will open the USA’s already porous borders to these thugs.

This NY Post editorial highlights what’s happening within the Abolish ICE movement when it says ” the ‘Abolish ICE’ crowd has no actual proposal for what — if anything — should replace it. They just want the agency shut immediately, and we’ll worry later about what comes next. Which leaves them legitimately open (as Trump clearly realizes) to the charge that what they really want is no immigration enforcement, and de facto open borders.”

Let’s be clear about something — ICE didn’t rip families apart:

Even though President Trump has suspended the breakups — and it was the Border Patrol, not ICE, separating the families.

That doesn’t matter to the Abolish ICE movement’s leadership. What matters is that abolishing ICE just pushes the USA one step closer to their real goal of open borders. Here’s the bad news for Democrats:

Yes, polls show widespread opposition to Trump’s handling of the border crisis — but also show that Americans still oppose illegal immigration and favor beefed-up border security.

After reading Rep. Mark Pocan’s CNN op-ed, it’s clear that he thinks this is a winning issue for him and Democrats. It isn’t.

First, let’s learn what Rep. Pocan’s solution is. Rep. Pocan writes “With the President grossly misusing ICE and the agency broken beyond repair, I’m proposing legislation to abolish the agency. Specifically, my bill would dissolve ICE within six months and create a commission to provide recommendations to Congress on how the US government can implement a humane immigration enforcement system that upholds the dignity of all individuals. The commission would then transfer necessary functions that do not violate basic human rights to other agencies.”

Let’s study this a minute. How will this change anything? The ‘problem’ isn’t the facilities. The ‘problem’ starts with President Trump enforcing the law. Most people in the Heartland see that as a feature, not a problem. In fact, I’m betting that a significant majority of people across the United States see that as a feature.

Though much of the President’s abusive crackdown on undocumented people and innocent children is focused on the borders, it’s also happening in countless communities across the country. From conducting raids at garden centers and meatpacking plants, to targeting families outside churches and schools, the President is using ICE to tear apart families and rip at the moral fabric of our nation.

Since when is enforcing the laws of this land a moral crisis? Democrats can stop this situation in no time by simply funding President Trump’s border wall.

While Democrats whine incessantly about families getting torn apart, Republicans educate Americans about the drug cartels, human traffickers and other criminals entering through the U.S.’s porous southern border. These things have nothing to do with ICE but they’ve got everything to do with fixing America’s opioid and crime problem.

While Rep. Pocan defends his bill, President Trump will defend America.

After Democrats decided to go too far on immigration, the only question left is whether there’s enough sensible Democrats to pull the party back from the brink of electoral disaster.

Scott Jennings put it beautifully when he wrote “This flap over family detention has again laid bare a debate that worked in Trump’s favor in 2016 and could still help him and the Republican Party win in 2018 and 2020: One party prefers tighter immigration restrictions and one party leans toward relaxed enforcement. Trump himself made that case in a speech in Las Vegas over the weekend, when he cited in fiery terms Democrats’ desire for “open borders” on a campaign swing designed to boost the fortunes of incumbent Republican Dean Heller. Democrats are likely to be disappointed when they poll this issue. My guess is that a majority of Americans will feel the same about Trump before and after, and some may even like him more. The bottom is not going to fall out of this presidency over Trump taking a position that conforms with his hardline anti-immigration stance. I imagine a negligible number of Trump supporters will abandon their support for him over this misguided policy.”

The truth is that the American people have a complex view of immigration in that they want families kept together, even if they’re here illegally. This speaks to Americans’ decency. They also want the border shut because they don’t like chaos ruling the nation. Nothing says chaotic like open borders.

Democrats, for the most part, want open borders. In the grand scheme of things, the American people prefer order over disorder. That’s especially true in America’s heartland. In fact, that preference is heightened in states like Ohio, Minnesota and Michigan.

If Democrats lose net House seats in those states, their path to a majority in the U.S. House disappears. That’s why I’ve preached that the path to the majority for the Democratic Party is slim for most of this year.

Why would I change my opinion after Democrats started espousing abolishing ICE?