Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Immigration category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

Tonight, the St. Cloud City Council, with 1 exception, voted to ignore federal statutes by approving Jeff Goerger’s resolution. Significant portions of Goerger’s ‘Welcoming Resolution’ were incorrect and possibly intentionally dishonest. For instance, a paragraph in Goerger’s Welcoming Resolution said “Whereas the Refugee Act of 1980 does not create a mandate for local, city and county government.”

That’s entirely incorrect. Councilman Jeff Johnson’s resolution, which wasn’t officially introduced tonight, highlighted that “WHEREAS, the Refugee Act of 1980 states in 8 U.S.C. 1522(2)(A): “The Director and the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1), shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.”

Clearly, the Refugee Act of 1980 required the federal government to consult with state and local governments no less than once every 3 months before dumping refugees into a city’s laps. If Mr. Goerger doesn’t think that that’s a mandate, then he needs a dictionary because the definition of mandate is “a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative” or “an authoritative order or command.”

Earlier in the Refugee Act of 1980, it said “the Refugee Act of 1980 states in 8 U.S.C. 1522(1)(A)(iii) “local voluntary agency activities should be conducted in close cooperation and advance consultation with State and local governments.”

UPDATE: A loyal reader of LFR called me after tonight’s meeting and told me that the resolution didn’t pass. Dave Masters called the question, meaning that the vote that was taken right before adjourning tonight’s meeting was a vote on whether to end discussion on the properly seconded motion. Carol Lewis asked for the yeas and nays, with 5 people voting for and Jeff Johnson voting against. Less than 5 seconds after the vote to call the question happened, Ms. Lewis, as the City Council President, adjourned the meeting.

What’s more is that Ms. Lewis reopened the meeting that she adjourned after she’d been told that they hadn’t voted on approving the resolution. Proper parliamentary procedure requires that a meeting that’s been adjourned can’t be re-opened.

UPDATE II: Another loyal reader of LFR called and told me that between 5 and 7 Somali men surrounded Councilman Johnson immediately following the meeting. According to this eyewitness, Councilman Johnson didn’t have a exit path. I don’t know if this is a picture of these Somalis surrounding Councilman Johnson but it’s certainly likely:

The caption reads “St. Cloud City Council member Jeff Johnson talks with community leaders following a council meeting Monday, October 23, at city hall.”

I’ll have more to say about tonight’s meeting later today. Hint: The City Council ambushed Jeff Johnson.

Technorati: , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , ,

President Trump outlined his principles for an immigration compromise Sunday night. Saying that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi weren’t pleased with President Trump’s immigration principles is understatement. In their joint statement, Pelosi and Schumer said “the administration can’t be serious about compromise or helping the Dreamers if they begin with a list that is anathema to the Dreamers, the immigrant community and the vast majority of Americans.”

Pelosi and Schumer must stick to that line because their base requires it. That doesn’t mean that their base is representative of a majority of Americans, though. I was thrilled when I read the “agreement goes far beyond an outline of a deal with the White House announced by Schumer and Pelosi last month, after their meeting with Trump. The two Democrats said the president had agreed to attach a DACA fix to a border security package that would not include wall funding. They reiterated on Sunday night that their agreement ‘explicitly ruled out’ the border wall, a key Trump campaign promise. ‘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,’ Schumer and Pelosi added.”

There’s little doubt that backstabbers like Sen. McCain and Sen. Collins would agree with Schumer and Pelosi. That’s their decision. If they vote against the border wall, Republicans will simply wait until the new Senate is sworn in, then tell the backstabbers they can either do the right thing or get primaried. That’s their choice.

As for Schumer and Pelosi, their choice is whether they’ll support real border security, including the wall or whether they want to have this issue used against their vulnerable incumbents in red states next November. President Trump should tell them that funding for the Wall isn’t negotiable. Period. Point out to them how popular the wall is in blue collar districts that Democrats have to flip or hold to retake the majority. If they don’t moderate their position, then they’ll have to pay the price for their intransigence.

Finally, this is the perfect issue to tee up for 2020 if you’re President Trump. Blue collar workers know how much this has hurt their wages. If Democrats want to flip Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan in 2020, getting on the right side of this issue is essential for them.

Michael Starr-Hopkins is an attorney. He’s also a world-class Democratic spinmeister and a frequent contributor to the Hill magazine. In this op-ed, Starr-Hopkins verifies as fact that he’s a world-class Democratic spinmeister, saying “What happened to any semblance of political consistency? Republicans shouldn’t have to add falsities into their arguments, but they choose to. Republicans shouldn’t have to play to insecurities and fears to drive their party’s agenda, but they choose to. Republicans shouldn’t be willing to trick and misinform voters to win a political battle, but they choose to. Republicans are making a choice.”

Hopkins’ op-ed opens by talking about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s pardon. Hopkins’ opening paragraph says “Instead of acknowledging facts, Republicans continue to perpetuate the racially-tinged myths that have gridlocked our government. Instead of acknowledging facts, Republicans choose to pontificate about the illegality of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), while simultaneously defending the unconstitutional racial profiling by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the unconstitutional Muslim ban by President Trump.”

First, let’s introduce some facts into this dispute. The Supreme Court has halted all other courts from issuing an injunction on President Trump’s travel ban because they’ll hear arguments on whether it’s constitutional when their term opens in a couple of weeks. Until then, it isn’t proper to say that President Trump’s travel ban is unconstitutional. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has rightfully deferred to the President on issues of national security. It isn’t a stretch to think that’s what they’ll do this time. Next, racial profiling isn’t unconstitutional. Depending on the state, it might be illegal but it isn’t unconstitutional. (Shouldn’t an attorney know the difference between statutes and constitutional principles?)

Check out this paragraph:

Rewriting our political and racial history using identity politics isn’t just immoral and dangerous, it’s a desperate choice. Identity politics are destroying our ability to have honest conversations. Identity politics are destroying our ability to govern. Identity politics are a tool for distracting away from actual policy debates.

That’s pretty stunning. Democrats, not Republicans, have used identity politics for at least the last dozen years. When Mark Udall ran for re-election to the US Senate against Cory Gardner, Udall talked about getting out the women vote so often that the Denver Post nicknamed him Mark Uterus. Then there’s Hillary Clinton surrogate Madeleine Albright, who famously told female voters that “There’s a special place in hell for women don’t help each other”:

But I digress. During his interview with Tucker Carlson, Starr-Hopkins was asked why Nancy Pelosi said that people that had broken the law (DACA-protected illegal immigrants) had done a great thing for this nation. Starr-Hopkins said that that wasn’t what Ms. Pelosi said. Starr-Hopkins insisted that Ms. Pelosi said that these illegal immigrants had done a great thing for their families. The tape verifies that Starr-Hopkins didn’t get it right:

Approximately 3:25 into the video, Ms. Pelosi said “Their families did a great thing for our country, bringing these kids here, who are working…” Ms. Pelosi wasn’t praising the parents for their heroism towards their families. She spoke specifically about how illegal immigrants had helped the United States.

My exhortation is to question everything that Starr-Hopkins says. I’d start with a disposition of distrust because he’s given me tons of reason for not trusting him. That’s just the truth.

When Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration was ending DACA, Planned Parenthood threw a world-class hissy fit. Cecille Richards said “here at Planned Parenthood, we firmly believe that every person has the right to live, work, and raise a family freely and without the threat of deportation or separation.” Within minutes, the Twitterverse reacted. Erielle Davidson replied “Irony is dead.” Cameron Gray tweeted “And PETA just endorsed bacon.” Steve Ahlers replied, saying “Sounds like PP is making a strong case against PP.”

The point is that Planned Parenthood, or more precisely, Cecille Richards, is a Democratic operative more than she’s an pro-abortion zealot. That isn’t to say Ms. Richards is a disinterested bystander on abortions. She isn’t. The point is that she’s a willing ‘soldier’ for the progressive cause. I suspect that she’s a climate change believer. Further, I suspect that she’s an anti-war activist that would fit perfectly with CODEPINK.

This isn’t uncommon with progressives. Groupthink isn’t just a byword with them. It’s who they are.

Richards continued, saying “I’m infuriated. I’m heartbroken. But I’m sure about one thing: Planned Parenthood stands with DREAMers, the young people in this community who are the future of this country, then adding that DACA has “helped so many young DREAMers access health care, get driver’s licenses, receive an education, and work to provide for their families — and without DACA, their fate and ability to remain in this country is unknown.”

Thanks to the flood of illegal immigrants into the US during the Obama administration, wages dropped in factories. The white working class got the message. The Democratic Party that fought for them had disappeared. The DNCC was mostly interested in attracting Hispanics, the newest growing demographic group. Democrats got so infatuated with Hispanics that they forgot (ignored?) the white working class.

Ben Shapiro criticized and mocked Richards’ statements in this interview:

Suffice it to say that Shapiro ripped Richards’ statement to shreds.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Keith Ellison’s strained logic just got him in trouble again. This time, Ellison compared DACA-protected illegal immigrants to Jewish victims in Nazi Germany. Before going totally off the deep end, Ellison started off by saying “heard today as many as 3 million DACA recipients live with someone who is a citizen of the United States. Add that to the people who work with DACA recipients. Add that to the people who are the parents of a DACA recipients. Add that to people who are parents to America citizens. You are literally talking about over 100 million Americans who are in some way—way more than 100 million, maybe well over that—who are deeply connected to people who have immigrated to the United States, some with official papers some with not. So this is not someone else’s fight. This is all our fight, but some are in the bull’s-eye, and others of us are not exactly the target. Therefore, it is our responsibility to stand up and fight and do the right thing.”

Had he stopped there, he might’ve been alright. He would’ve gotten criticized for his logic (or lack thereof) but he wouldn’t have gotten criticized like he’s getting criticized right now. That’s because Ellison continued, saying “I’m going to tell you right now, I’m one of the people who believe we should give our neighbors sanctuary. And if you ask yourself what I would do if I were a Gentile in 1941, if my Jewish neighbors were under attack by the—by—by the Nazis? Would I give them sanctuary? You might be about to find out what you would do. Will you pass that moral test or will you fail it?”

Ellison’s moral relativism is frightening. German Jews were just that — Jews who had been living in Germany for generations. How is that even slightly like Mexicans and OTMs who came illegally into the United States? Keith Ellison’s comparison is offensive. Illegal immigrants getting deported isn’t even slightly like Jewish victims sentenced to death chambers like Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, Sobibór, and Be??ec. To suggest otherwise is foolish.

The first part of this video is pretty contrived but it isn’t offensive like Ellison’s comparison of DACA-protected illegal immigrants to Holocaust victims. Still, it’s worth examining. First, there are reportedly 800,000 DACA recipients, not 3,000,000. Further, why should anyone think that people harboring illegal immigrants are worthy of sympathy?

This is Ellison’s first extended time on the big stage. Prior to this, he was just a back-bencher with a shtick. Now that the spotlight’s on him, we’re finding out that he’s months away from being ready for primetime. It isn’t unreasonable to think that he’ll never be ready for primetime.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Jazz Shaw’s post is today’s must reading for immigration hawks. In his post, Jazz cites this article. The highlight of the article comes when it starts citing statistics. Without further adieu, let’s get to those statistics.

The article’s opening paragraph says “Speaking on the second anniversary of the government’s move to seal Hungary’s border with Serbia — which is also an external border for the European Union — Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Chief Security Advisor, György Bakondi, announced that the fences have caused illegal immigration to collapse from 391,000 in 2015, to 18,236 in 2016, to just 1,184 in 2017.” According to Jazz, that’s a 99% drop in illegal immigration. Actually, it’s a 99.7% drop in illegal immigration but what’s seven-tenths of a point amongst friends?

Jazz sums things up perfectly, saying “The math here should be a bit too much for any but the most willfully blind to ignore. In 2015 there were an estimated 390,000 illegal border crossings. Thus far this year the number is barely over one thousand. That’s not just impressive… it’s staggering.

The next time a wobbly Republican or a weak-on-law-and-order-Democrat start whining about the cost of building the wall or how walls don’t work or other BS, point them to this article, then ask them if a 99.7% decrease in illegal immigration is worth paying for. I’m betting that we’ll find that border security isn’t a priority with these politicians. It’s time to let them know that they’re in the minority. Yes, a majority of people want DACA-protected illegal immigrants to stay but it’s also true that they want the border wall built.

This information proves that walls work in keeping out drug cartels while stifling human trafficking in addition to stopping illegal immigration. Democrats and GOP fluffs like John McCain and Jeff Flake don’t support the wall. Is it because they want a deal so badly that they’re willing to ignore the other national security threats posed by lax border enforcement?

Here’s hoping that President Trump plays hardball with Democrats. This isn’t just another issue. To those living along the southern border, it’s a matter of life and death. Literally. Things have improved since President Trump took over, thanks mostly to Jeff Sessions’ work in taking border security seriously. What’s important, though, is noting that, without a wall, Democrats can stop taking border security seriously … again. and we’d be right back with floods of illegal immigrants again.

The wall will stop that flood forever. That’s the last thing that Democrats want, though minds are changing about that. As they settle into this country, lots of Hispanic immigrants start thinking of themselves as white. If that’s the case, then the political advantage for Democrats is overstated, which is a game-changer. At that point, enforcement becomes the most important issue. Once the fight moves onto that turf, Democrats, McCain and Flake lose.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

If Minnesotans needed additional proof that Emperor Dayton doesn’t understand the importance of enforcing our nation’s laws, we got it this week. This past Tuesday, Emperor Dayton said that enforcing our nation’s immigration laws was “lunacy.” While greeting students outside Meadow Lake Elementary School in New Hope, Emperor Dayton said “It’s just shameful. I mean you have Republican members of Congress as well as Democrats saying this is the wrong way to go. Here in Minnesota we have a shortage of skilled workers. So we’re going to take some 6,200 that are here under DACA and send them away? It’s lunacy.”

I know that some Republicans don’t believe in enforcing this nation’s immigration laws, too. Names like John McCain and Lindsey Graham immediately leap to mind. The term “comprehensive immigration reform” immediately pops into my mind, too. Most importantly, the term open borders comes to mind because that’s essentially what we’ve had the past 16 years. This CIS report says that the “total number of illegal immigrants (11 to 12 million) has held roughly constant in recent years because the number arriving has roughly balanced the number going home or getting legal status. This has created the mistaken impression that the problem is largely over. The most recent estimates from the Center for Migration Studies indicate that 1.7 million aliens joined the illegal population from 2009 to 2013 and Pew Research Center estimates indicate 1.5 million, 300,000 to 400,000 a year. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates an additional 790,000 joined the illegal population since 2013 for a total of 2.5 million new illegal immigrants since President Obama took office.”

I’d love to hear Emperor Dayton explain why consistent enforcement of our nation’s laws is lunacy. I’d love to hear him explain why turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is acceptable. President Obama and Emperor Dayton have turned a blind eye towards this problem. As a result, wages have stagnated and economic growth has been pathetic.

When President Obama and Emperor Dayton turned a blind eye towards illegal immigration, things got worse, not better. When Rahm Emanuel turned a blind eye towards gun violence, things got worse, not better. That’s the history of pacifism. Things get worse, not better. Pacifism told Ayatollah Khomeini he could start an Islamic revolution. Pacifism told Hitler that he could conquer Europe without much of a fight. Now, pacifism is telling illegal immigrants that they’re welcome to stay here without impunity.

Pacifism is lunacy. Consistently enforcing the law is the start of sanity.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Ron Brownstein’s article highlights the upcoming fight over DACA and immigration reform. Brownstein’s article, though, contains some conflicting information that’s worth examining.

For instance, Brownstein wrote “In both 2006 and 2013, a bipartisan group of Senators crafted legislation whose central beam balanced tougher enforcement measures with a pathway to citizenship for 10-11 million undocumented immigrants, so long as they met certain conditions such as learning English. (Around that centerpiece, both bills also explicitly legalized those brought to the U.S. illegally as children, established a guest-worker program, and reformed legal immigration.) Every concerned interest group gnashed their teeth over some element of that composition, but business, organized labor, and immigrant advocacy groups locked arms behind the final product. With that widespread institutional backing, and polls showing support from a clear majority of Americans, the Senate comfortably approved each bill.”

It doesn’t make sense that “a clear majority of Americans” supported comprehensive immigration reform but elected Donald Trump, the biggest hardliner on border enforcement and illegal immigration. The most logical explanation is that people like immigration in the abstract, like health care reform, but don’t like it when it’s put into legislative form. Further, in the Trump era, people don’t trust Washington politicians to listen to them or to do the right thing.

This phrase is the key in explaining things:

With that widespread institutional backing

Apparently, Mr. Brownstein hasn’t figured it out that having Washington’s “institutional backing” is a negative. People have been trying to get politicians to listen for the last 15+ years. If Congress attempts to pass a bill that’s similar to the Gang of 8 legislation, they’d better expect it to get vetoed immediately. That might be what Washington insiders want but it isn’t what the people want.

If Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, try shoving another Gang of 8-style bill down our throats, they’d better prepare for the end of their political careers. If Congress doesn’t listen to the American people, they’ll deserve the voters’ wrath. Republicans like Jeff Flake will increase the risk of losing in a primary while Democrats like John Tester, Sherrod Brown and Claire McCaskill will likely lose to their Republican challengers.

Washington, including Mr. Brownstein, hasn’t noticed how popular the wall is. Voters know that future administrations can deploy border patrols 50+ miles north of the border. They don’t trust Democrats to do the right thing with immigration. The wall can’t be redeployed. Where it’s built, it’ll stay. It isn’t just that President Trump insists on the wall. It’s that the people insist on it.

If Democrats running in the heartland won’t listen to the people, the outcome of their races isn’t a mystery. They’re cruising for a bruising. Sarah Huckabee-Sanders put Democrats in their place pretty quickly:

Sarah Huckabee-Sanders put Democrats in their place during one of her most recent briefings. She highlighted the question about why Democrats turned a blind eye towards law-breakers. Democrats don’t have an answer to that question. That’s why they keep losing elections.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,