Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Immigration category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

Just when you thought the DFL couldn’t get any nuttier, their messaging center, aka ABM, sent out this fundraising appeal:

Hasn’t the DFL paid attention lately? This fundraising letter says that “Undocumented Minnesotans are our friends and our neighbors.” Go to Willmar, St. Cloud, Little Falls or any town with a meat-packing plant and ask them if they see illegal aliens (they aren’t “undocumented Minnesotans”) as their neighbors.

The DFL hasn’t figured it out that the average blue collar worker is disgusted with the DFL’s open border policies. BTW, this includes the rising tensions caused by the refugee resettlement program. If the DFL wants to write off rural Minnesota’s voters, they’re advocating for the right policies to accomplish that.

Earlier today, I read this article about how Gabby Giffords’ group is running ads against Republicans who’ve accepted money from the NRA:

As President Donald Trump addresses the National Rifle Association this week, a leading gun-safety group is looking to make an example out of suburban Republicans. Giffords, the organization co-founded by shooting victim and former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., will announce Thursday that it is adding five GOP lawmakers to its list of midterm targets and launching digital ads in 10 competitive House and Senate races, NBC News has learned exclusively.

If that’s the Democrats’ strategy, Republicans should counter by highlighting the Democrats’ open border policies.

People have noticed that immigration-related crime is rising. That’s why President Trump keeps pounding the subject. He knows that people don’t think of illegal immigration the way Jeb Bush saw it:

President Trump stripped away the propaganda and exposed the reality of illegal immigration, especially the gangs like MS-13 and the human trafficking that people in California are seeing. The Jeb Bush ‘act of love’ image of illegal immigration doesn’t play anymore.

Thanks to ABM’s and the DFL’s tone deafness, they’re still convinced that illegal immigration is a winning issue for them. Rest assured that it’s a winning issue … for Republicans.

Please, please, please, please, please let Tim Walz be the DFL candidate for governor. This afternoon, Tim Pawlenty sent out an email stating that Tim Walz answered a questionnaire from Our Revolution Minnesota. Reading through Our Revolution Minnesota’s news & headlines page, it’s pretty clear that this isn’t a moderate, center-left organization. One post is titled Our Revolution MN Endorsements: Ellison, Kulp, Phifer. The next post is titled Our Revolution MN Endorses Jeff Erdmann.

It’s obvious that they’re far left radicals.

The Pawlenty email states “Walz answered a question as part of the ‘Our Revolution Minnesota’ candidate questionnaire by stating that he would ‘make Minnesota a Sanctuary State.'” That Rep. Walz wants to turn Minnesota into a cold California is frightening. In California, which is now known as the ‘Crime & Homelessness State’ (compared to the Golden State of yesteryear), crime is rampant and pictures of massive tent cities of homeless people are routine parts of newscasts. If Tim Walz gets his way, this is what’s in Minnesota’s future:

This is Tim Pawlenty’s response to Tim Walz:

In the ad, Pawlenty said this:

Really? I mean that’s just nutty. And it’s not safe. It’ll take away tools from police officers who are trying to get criminals off the streets. When you turn on the news and you see things like a 90-year old farmer from Carver County who was robbed and beaten to death in his home by two illegal immigrants, Tim Walz’s plan makes even less sense. In fact, it’s dangerous. There’s a better way forward. I’ll bring common sense and accountability back to government.

It isn’t a stretch to say that Tim Walz sold his soul to run for governor. He used to have a great rating with the NRA. Now he’s trashing them because being on good speaking terms with the NRA isn’t allowed if you’re a DFL candidate for governor. Walz crafted an image of being sensible while in Congress. (He wasn’t sensible but that’s the image he crafted.) Running as the ‘Sanctuary State Candidate’ won’t help Walz’s carefully-crafted image.

This isn’t something Walz can dodge, either. I’m told that there’s visual proof of Walz’s sanctuary state statement. That puts Walz in an impossible position. If he denies making the statement, the visual proof is produced, which destroys Walz’s credibility. If Walz proudly states that he supports Minnesota as a sanctuary state, he turns off people in rural Minnesota, who expect laws to be enforced. Couple Walz’s sanctuary state policy with the refugee resettlement crisis and you’ve got the potential for lots of hostility directed at Rep. Walz. That’s a can’t-win situation.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday night, Beaumont and San Diego became the latest cities to officially reject California’s SB 54 California Values Act, aka California’s Sanctuary State law. In Beaumont, the Beaumont City Council voted 3-2 tonight to approve a resolution asserting that California’s so-called ‘sanctuary state’ law is incompatible with federal law and, therefore, illegitimate. Beaumont is the first Inland Empire municipality to oppose Senate Bill 54, the ‘California Values Act,’ joining Orange County and a number of its cities in challenging the statute’s validity.”

Also on Tuesday night, the “San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 Tuesday to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over so-called sanctuary laws that the state passed last year to limit its role in immigration enforcement. The county will file an amicus brief at the first available opportunity, likely if and when the case moves to a higher court on appeal, said Supervisor Kristin Gaspar, chairwoman of the board.”

I’d like to thank Agnes Gibboney, one of the Angel Moms I’ve had the privilege of interviewing, for tipping me off about the Beaumont vote.

It’s unmistakable that the tide is turning against the Sanctuary advocates. A month ago, Gov. Jerry Brown and California State Attorney General Xavier Becerra were lipping off to President Trump. Now, they’re in full retreat. According to Agnes and others, Californians are speaking up against the Democrats’ anti-safety policies. One of the ‘others’ is Kristin Gaspar, the chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Gaspar is also running to replace Rep. Darrell Issa in the US Congress. After Tuesday night’s vote, Fox News’ Ed Henry interviewed Ms. Gaspar about their vote. Here’s that interview:

I found this snippet disturbing:

SB 54 also mandates that schools, health facilities, libraries an courthouses serve as ‘safe zones,’ where undocumented immigrants can come and go without risk of detention.

I don’t see how that’s enforceable since the sidewalks and city streets are public property. It’s possible that SB 54 could suggest those areas as safe zones. I don’t see how California could mandate that those areas be safe zones.

In the end, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors listened to their constituents:

During the announcement of the vote, Gaspar showed printouts of emails she received from each side of the debate. The stack of emails criticizing her for considering support for the lawsuit was not much thicker than a legal pad. The stack of emails asking her to support the Trump administration’s legal challenge was more than a foot tall.

On a political note, Democrats had to think that they’d flip Darrell Issa’s seat after he narrowly defeated Doug Applegate, his Democratic opponent, by 1,600+ votes. With an increase in Republican voter intensity in San Diego, a pretty red district, coupled with Ms. Gaspar’s popularity, I’d say another Republican seat is a bigger challenge for the Democrats than it was a month ago.

Based on the reports I’m getting from southern California, I’m getting skeptical that Democrats will get enough seats from California to flip the House.

Margaret Baker, who lives near the border, told the board that backing the lawsuit will discourage immigrants from reporting crime. “We see this lawsuit as an attack on our safety and the well-being of our community,” she said.

The reports I’m getting from southern California is that significant numbers of illegal immigrants are injuring pedestrians in hit-and-run accidents, with many legal residents getting severely injured. It’s impossible to make the case that shielding these illegal immigrants from prosecution is making San Diego safe.

Facts on the ground are changing the debate more than Jerry Brown can spin things. That truth should frighten Democrats.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A week ago, Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra, California’s governor and state attorney general respectively, were riding high while touting California’s sanctuary state law. Since then, Brown and Becerra have done nothing but backtrack on immigration. Don’t expect their losing streak to end anytime soon. Los Alamitos was the first openly defiant city to challenge SB 54. It wasn’t the last.

Last night, Los Alamitos voted for a second time to opt out of SB 54. By a vote of 4-1, “Los Alamitos Council members voted … to opt out of a state law that prohibited state and local police agencies from informing federal authorities in cases when illegal immigrants facing deportation are released from detention.”

Councilman Mark Chirco was the lone dissenting vote. Afterwards, Chirco said “the council has no legal authority to approve the ordinance and criticized the council members for what he called being irresponsible, stating that the measure will open the city to lawsuits.”

That started the Democrats’ criticism:

Shortly after the vote, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tweeted that the ordinance is “a blatant violation of the city’s obligation to follow a state law that puts our local resources to use for the safety of our communities rather than toward federal immigration agencies.” The civil rights group previously threatened the city with a lawsuit if it passes the ordinance.

It isn’t surprising that the ACLU has it bassackwards. California doesn’t have the authority to ignore federal immigration policies. Let’s be blunt. That’s what California is doing by not notifying ICE of when illegal immigrants are getting out of jail.

The Democrats’ arguments are worthless as trash:

Omar Siddiqui, a U.S. Congressional candidate in California running to unseat Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, also spoke at the meeting, urging the council to oppose the motion as “our communities are safer when we work with each other and trust each other, not when we operate under a police state.”

Tell that to the Steinle family. This is an outright lie that’s told by Democrats. There’s no proof that verifies that as anything more than spin or theory.

Don’t be surprised if people reject Siddiqui. There’s an anti-sanctuary state backlash building in California. More people are getting tired of California’s failed liberal policies, especially with regards to illegal immigration. They’re tired of hearing how safe their communities are when they aren’t.

It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to figure out that this controversy is increasing voter intensity on the right. People are rejecting the Democrats’ anything goes immigration policies.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Almost reflexively, Democrats insist that Central Americans flee their country of origin to avoid the gang violence. This article is a good example of that reaction. This recent survey hints that NBC is buying someone’s spin.

First, the NBC article states “At its largest, the caravan included more than 1,500 members. Although many have chosen to stay in Mexico to pursue asylum, just over 600 of them will continue traveling to the United States. Its members are fleeing violence and political conflict in Honduras and other Central American nations. One Salvadoran caravan member said she fears for her life in El Salvador and feels she must continue to the United States in order to be safe from gang violence.”

That won’t be an easy sell. According to the survey, “Hondurans emigrate primarily for economic reasons, not violence, according to a new survey by a Jesuit-run research and social action center in that country. The report by the Reflection, Research, and Communication Team (ERIC-SJ as it is known in Spanish) is based on a survey of public perceptions of Honduras’ social, political, and economic situation in 2017. ERIC-SJ conducted the survey February 12-22, 2018, with a national sample of 1,584 valid questionnaires, which is representative of all persons over 18 who live in the country.”

These are some of the questions survey respondents were asked:

  1. Under the current situation in the country, have you thought or wished to emigrate?
  2. Has a member of the family emigrated in the last 4 years?
  3. Could you tell me the reasons why your family member emigrated from the country? (Answered by those who answered the previous question in the affirmative)
  4. Do you know if an acquaintance, relative, or neighbor has emigrated due to violence?

According to the article, respondents said:

The report confirmed the economic crisis in Honduras as the main cause for migration. Of the respondents that had a family member who had emigrated in the last four years, 82.9 percent did so due to lack of employment and opportunities to generate an income. Meanwhile, 11.3 percent migrated due to violence and insecurity. In comparison, the 2015 ERIC-SJ survey showed that 77.6 percent migrated for economic reasons and 16.9 percent migrated due to violence.

This video follows the script:

I won’t say that Honduras is a tropical paradise. I’m simply skeptical of the frequent articles that portray Honduras ‘migrants’ as fleeing violence.

Technorati: , , , ,

When I first read this op-ed, I didn’t take it seriously. Then I reread it. This time, the second time was the charm. While I’m far from agreeing with each of the opinions expressed by the author, I’m not dismissing them either.

For instance, the author is Peggy Grande, “the executive assistant to president Ronald Reagan from 1989–1999.” This isn’t some wild-eyed activist. This is someone who’s connected to California’s political culture. I won’t dismiss Ms. Grande when she wrote “Surprising but true, there actually are conservatives in California, but we have been silenced and powerless far too long and now are finding an unlikely alliance with common sense Democrats who feel abandoned by their party and realize it no longer represents them.”

Eventually, people won’t tolerate being ignored. That’s often where backlashes start. I’d certainly make a persuasive argument that that’s where Trump’s backlash came from. In 2015-16, people in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin switched allegiances in the presidential election.

Further, Ms. Grande wrote “It appears those in power here who have championed policies that continue to steer California further and further left may now have overplayed their hand. And the backlash has begun, with no end in sight. In fact, common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle are coming together in solidarity to challenge policies and governing that has left them to endure the consequences of the decisions of their lawmakers, which has made life more expensive, more challenging, more dangerous, and in some instances even putting them into potential legal jeopardy. For example, business owners now face the quandary of being in compliance with the feds or being in compliance with the state with their employees and their immigration status. This is not a partisan issue. This is the very type of issue that continues to make California a difficult place to do business and disincentivizes businesses to come here and continues to drive successful businesses and taxpayers out of the state.”

Then Ms. Grande gives us a history lesson:

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for many years before switching to the Republican Party. When asked why he changed parties, he said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me.”

If high taxes, overregulation and dealing with a homeless/illegal immigration crisis isn’t enough to spark a backlash, nothing will.

Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra spearheaded the initiative to turn California into a sanctuary state. Since I first wrote about the crisis, cities and counties started defying the will of the elitists. Eventually, people will reach a point where they join this guy:

On a more serious note, if Democrats don’t flip a bunch of seats in California, their blue wave won’t swamp the Republicans. It’s that simple.

Whatever you think of Jerry Brown, aka Gov. Moonbeam, it’s indisputable that he’s a typical career politician. The latest proof of that is Gov. Brown’s announcement that he’s sending National Guard troops to reinforce the border but that “they won’t be used for ‘enforcing federal immigration laws.'”

In his official communication with the administration, Brown states “Your funding for new staffing will allow the Guard to do what it does best: support operations targeting transnational criminal gangs, human traffickers and illegal firearm and drug smugglers along the border, the coast and throughout the state. Combating these criminal threats are priorities for all Americans, Republicans and Democrats. That’s why the state and the Guard have long supported this important work and agreed to similar targeted assistance in 2006 under President Bush and in 2010 under President Obama.”

Next comes the important part for Gov. Brown, especially politically. Gov. Brown states “But let’s be crystal clear on the scope of this mission. This will not be a mission to build a new wall. It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life. And the California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws.”

That’s what’s known as CYA. There never was an expectation that the National Guard would build the wall. Further, it’s been established practice that the Guard supports the Border Patrol by manning surveillance posts, keeping vehicles in good repair and other non-law enforcement activities.

Finally, this is what’s called caving to political pressure. Suffice it to say that Gov. Brown and California Attorney Gen. Becerra didn’t expect this much push-back on illegal immigration. What’s interesting is that Gov. Brown admitted that illegal aliens are part of “transnational criminal gangs”, are human traffickers and illegal firearm and drug smugglers.”

With those types of crimes on their rap sheets, and with California protecting criminal aliens, it’s more accurate to call California a fugitive state than to call it a sanctuary state. It’s difficult to say that today’s Democratic Party cares about enforcing laws or protecting people. Finally, it’s difficult to take Democrats seriously about #MeToo when they turn a blind eye towards human trafficking.

This tweet from Tim Walz says everything we need to know about his allegiance to the Democrats’ special interests. Further, it says that Rep. Walz’s allegiance isn’t to protecting American citizens.

The tweet says “The way @realDonaldTrump treats Dreamers is no way for anyone to treat contributing patriotic members of our country. The way @realDonaldTrump approaches trade is no way for anyone to approach matters that have real-life impacts on working-class folks. Enough, Mr. President.”

Rep. Walz has worked on veterans’ issues for 11 years. It’s still a problem, meaning that he’s more into working on problems than he’s into fixing problems. Working on problems is something that Gov. Dayton has focused on. He’s worked on MNLARS. He’s worked on MNsure. He’s (barely) worked on the elder care home crisis. Each of these issues have been around 6-8 years. Of those issues, MNsure is the closest to being fixed. The others are far from fixed.


Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Here’s a question to millennials: why vote for people who can’t get a simple website to work? MNLARS doesn’t work. MNsure didn’t work. When you can’t get a simple website working, what part of that sounds like someone equipped for life in the 21st century? Shouldn’t our next governor be someone who’s ready to create a MNLARS app? This is what Tim Walz thinks of rural Minnesota:

Remember that Walz supposedly represents rural Minnesotans. If he cares that little about his own constituents, shouldn’t we expect that he doesn’t care about protecting the nation?

With Arizona and Texas sending National Guard troops to the border, it’s clear who’s serious about securing the nation and who isn’t.

If Democrats gain a majority in the House, they’ll revert to their open borders policies:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ripped President Trump on Twitter Thursday for “pointlessly” sending troops to the border instead of working with Democrats on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The California Democrat wrote: “@realDonaldTrump is using every cynical political trick in the book to ignite anti-immigrant fervor. Needlessly militarizing our southern border won’t make Americans more safe – it’s just another political calculation.

“Instead of wasting resources on pointlessly sending troops to our border, @realDonaldTrump should work with Democrats to pass the DREAM Act & #ProtectDREAMers,” she added.

Tell Mary Ann Mendoza that stopping illegal aliens at the border isn’t important. Mrs. Pelosi, I want you to look Sabine Durden in the eyes, then tell her that stopping illegal aliens at the border. Mrs. Pelosi, I triple-dog dare you to tell Agnes Gibboney that enforcing our immigration laws aren’t important.

Apparently, doing nothing is the Democrats’ plan. Americans, if you want lax border security, catch-and-release immigration enforcement and MS-13 running free without fear, vote Democrat. I’ve yet to find one that’s serious about securing the border. Americans, if you want the opioid epidemic to get worse, vote Democrat. Thanks to the Obama administration’s lax border enforcement, drug shipments entered the US without interruption or interdiction.

This Prager University video explains what must be done to take illegal immigration seriously:

With Democrats complaining about the costs of securing the border, let’s ask these whiney lefties how much it costs the US to pay for educating illegal aliens, how much it costs for the illegal aliens’ welfare benefits and how much it costs in terms of crimes committed by illegal aliens.

I’m betting that the cost of building a wall is a pittance compared with the costs of drug smuggling, welfare benefits and education.

Finally, let’s praise governors Doug Ducey and Greg Abbott for swiftly deploying the National Guard troops. They’re doing more than their fair share to keep Americans safe. That’s something I can’t say about the Democrats.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

This afternoon, a loyal reader of LFR forwarded me an email newsletter from TakeAction Minnesota. Included in that email was a link to this article, which deals with the topics of voting and gun control.

It starts by saying “At last month’s March for Our Lives in Washington, DC, the 20 young people who spoke had a clear message for the hundreds of thousands of protesters: Vote. Specifically, they urged their supporters to vote out of office any lawmaker who stands in the way of gun control. ‘The voting is what we’re pushing here,’ Stoneman Douglas student and #NeverAgain activist Jaclyn Corin said in an interview with Crooked Media before the march. ‘The March is kind of a statement saying, ‘Hey, we’re gonna be voting in November. Watch out—all these people are voting against you.'”

This year, Democrats are pushing 2 things hard — raising the minimum age of buying certain types of guns to 21 and lowering the voting age to 16. Democrats are arguing simultaneously that 16-year-olds are wise enough to make informed decisions on who should represent people in Congress but 20-year-olds are too stupid to safely operate a semi-automatic firearm. Wouldn’t you love to hear David Hogg or Emma Gonzalez explain that?

Actually, the explanation is rather simple. First, Democrats want to flood the polling booths with as many uninformed voters as possible. People that think things through vote for conservatives more often than they vote for Democrats. That’s a statement of statistical fact. It isn’t a statement of derision. Next, raising the age of purchase to 21 is an emotional issue for people. The Democrats’ base will be fired up as a result.

Republicans need to frame this election as a referendum between sensible policies vs. irrational policies. Let’s illustrate:

  1. There’s nothing irrational about enforcing our international borders. There’s nothing sane about opening our borders to drug cartels while fighting an opioid crisis.
  2. There’s nothing irrational about reducing regulations and increasing competition.
  3. There’s nothing sane about increasing regulations that cripple competition.
  4. There’s nothing irrational about moving national guard troops to the Tex-Mex border to prevent human trafficking.
  5. There’s nothing sane about letting human traffickers bring in sex slaves from Latin America.
  6. There’s nothing irrational about shutting down the borders to prevent violent felons from entering the US.
  7. There’s nothing sane about letting violent felons into the US by turning a blind eye towards the Tex-Mex border. That inevitably leads to new members of the Angel Parents ‘club’.

Conservatives, it’s time for you to ask yourselves if you want Congress run by people who won’t protect its citizens by electing Democrat majorities in the House and/or Senate or whether we’ll tell our friends, neighbors, co-workers and church family to get out and vote for sane conservatives, then voting ourselves. What’s required from conservatives is gritty determination to vote. Losing the House and/or the Senate will stop President Trump’s common-sense agenda on immigration, regulations and shutting down gangs like MS-13.

It’s ok to disapprove of President Trump’s tweets. Some of his tweets are inexcusable and shouldn’t be defended. His economic and national security agenda, however, aren’t just defensible. They’re essential.

Finally, it’s essential that all patriots vote to save this republic. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic but it’s where we’re at right now. Democrat progressives hate the principles that this nation was founded on. That’s how they can advocate for raising the minimum age to buy a gun to 21, then immediately argue that it’s essential to lower the voting age to 16. These aren’t sensible arguments. They’re the arguments of irrational people. Liberalism isn’t a political philosophy. It’s a mental disorder.